Talk:The Two Babylons

message: 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)
thread_title:  I've tried to clean up some language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ninus/Nimrod, and other issues 

message: 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)
thread_title: Critisism has chat in it

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weasel wording 

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Two-babylons.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: Poor Grammar/Spelling/POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religious Bias

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: His New Book Sucks As Bad as His First One

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality Disputed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: : Speedily Moved as uncontroversial by another editor. To italicize a title, add the template  near the top of the page. Station1 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anti-Protestant bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Luther