Talk:Wormwood (star)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
Perhaps the worst article I have ever read in the Wikipedia.
MyNameIsFarang 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This "article" is a joke. TheLightOfTruth 12:10, 28 October 2005
Hello. I have re-created this page, and it is much improved over its last incarnation. If you two are still around, perhaps you could suggest some further improvements for its content. ◄Zahakiel► 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Connection between Wormwood and Chernobyl
I've heard some people talk about Wormwood being a reference to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, because Chernobyl is actually Russian for "Wormwood" (with the whole "1/3rd of the Earth's water becoming Wormwood" being the radiation cloud spreading across the globe). I can't come up with any specific sources off the top of my head, though. Has anyone else heard of this? Joylock 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've heard this too and it seems to be connected to the idea of corrupting Earth's resources. I believe "Wormwood" is also a codeword for Nuclear Containment Leakage, or Radioactive Poisoning. Mimeblade 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a New York Times article from 1986 that makes the connection between the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and Wormwood of Revelations. 70.144.92.198 03:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl seems to sum it all up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.39 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Literature
I notice that the References in Literature section has now been completely removed. I disagree with this, but would rather discuss it here.
The edit summaries given stated 'rm trivial/OR similarity/no avowed connection'. I feel this is in bad judgement. While some references may fit this criteria, some of those removed - such as the CS Lewis reference - were clearly references to the character in Revelation and should remain included.
Similarly, the Armageddon: The Musical reference is appropriate as the books are specifically an interpretation of end times lore, among other things, and as such can be interpreted in light of the book of Revelation. I'm not sure if Rankin has ever gone on record for this, in part because it's so obvious, but I'll have a look. --Black Butterfly 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you to a large degree on this. Unfortunately an editor (who is also an admin.) appears to be on a recent crusade to remove everything he believes is trivial, and there is some indication that the consensus of the other editors is not as important as the opinion he happens to hold. We'll just have to see what comes of it. You can re-add the info. if you wish; I already did so once, but it might just get removed again. ◄Zahakiel► 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies are more important than the opinions of any user. --Eyrian 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, an essay is not wikipedia policy. Consensus is. ◄Zahakiel► 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- A predictable response. WP:NOT is policy. My essay just explains how those policies apply. --Eyrian 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to get into this with you here, it is pretty indicative that you believe your essay is necessary to explain the ins-and-outs of WP:NOT to the rest of us poor peons. We're perfectly able to read, we simply disagree with the narrow interpretation you've put on some of the rules there. ◄Zahakiel► 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- People make what I believe to be flawed interpretations all the time. Sometimes quite flagrantly. If you understand, then the essay isn't really for you. That still doesn't change the fact that insignificant details simply don't belong in articles. --Eyrian 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to get into this with you here, it is pretty indicative that you believe your essay is necessary to explain the ins-and-outs of WP:NOT to the rest of us poor peons. We're perfectly able to read, we simply disagree with the narrow interpretation you've put on some of the rules there. ◄Zahakiel► 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- A predictable response. WP:NOT is policy. My essay just explains how those policies apply. --Eyrian 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, an essay is not wikipedia policy. Consensus is. ◄Zahakiel► 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies are more important than the opinions of any user. --Eyrian 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Some had no similarities, others were merely trivial. Cultural references cannot be inconsequential. That is to say, they must have an effect on the general perception of the thing they are referencing. Just using a name (almost) never does that. Other works generally just don't have an impact. Their importance must be proven using an independent source, as a work cannot be used to justify its own importance. --Eyrian 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify, writing is generally a process of making allusions. Similarities to mythology and cultural commons are omnipresent. Mentioning the origin of these names is absolutely appropriate, but usually only in the work that does the referencing, not the other way around, unless the work has had an impact on the general perception. And that impact, of course, needs to be proven in accordance with Wikipedia policies about attributability. --Eyrian 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- You've got that backwards. You need to attribute the impact of popular culture references on the perception of the concept if the article is "The perception of X in popular culture." What we have here, and in many other articles that have fallen under your critical eye of late, is a set of examples that show the impact of the concept on works in the culture. That's precisely what this article is doing. I realize that you hold to an (oft stated) position that this is not important (to you), but really... with the courses your past few AfDs have taken, and the resistance you are getting with your consensus-defying edits to long-standing articles, one would think you'd try to work within the community rather than pushing your assertions like, "This needs to dramatically affect the wholesale view of the concept to be important." That's not policy; there is no policy outlawing examples if this type, that's opinion, even with your recent "tweaks" to the policy and guideline pages you then turn around and cite. The WP:TRIVIA guideline is a nice shield, but that was created to prevent long and unmanagable lists of banal details about a particular topic. Even when applied to articles it recommends deletion as only one of a variety of options, and emphasizes that Wikipedia policies (including the cooperative element) are not to be ignored. What you are doing with it is a sure path to alienating a whole lot of editors, as you're finding out even now. Maybe you don't care about that much, but it's certainly going to make site building a challenge. ◄Zahakiel► 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's become very clear from the start that removing these lists would alienate a number of people. It's because lots of people love these lists. After all, they're one of the most interactive parts of Wikipedia. Anyone can add to a pop-culture list. You don't need to do research, as almost anybody can probably think of something new. You don't need to understand writing structure, as they're just bulleted entries in a long list, and can be added with only the most basic elements of grammar and style. You don't even need to read the article, as often just a mention of the name is enough. Of course they're popular; these lists have "common" written all over them. They do not, however, have "encyclopedic".
- And yes, a cultural reference needs to show significance. Are Wikipedia articles really about insignificant details? Should an article mention something that is insignificant to it? Once that's been established, we can recognize that, since Wikipedia articles are written for a general audience, such references should require general significance. Not global significance, but they need to be demonstrate something substantial. And the way that we demonstrate things in Wikipedia is with independent sources. As I've always maintained, there is nothing really new in policy about any of this. --Eyrian 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- My point, sir, is that words like "substantial" and "significant" are hugely POV terms. You cannot always demonstrate it by having some expert say "Yes, this is significant." This is why common sense is built in to the system, and this is why your ignoring of that, and consensus in many cases, leads to alienation; it is not because of your nobility or self-assessed advanced understanding of the guidelines and policies of this encyclopedia, but because of your rigidity. That has never been a useful way to go about building this site, and it's receiving its expected reaction - it is simply indefensible. ◄Zahakiel► 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need an expert to specifically say that it's significant, just someone to comment on it. That demonstrates significance. Citing sources, and insisting on their presence, has always been the best way to go about building the site. --Eyrian 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- For information about the subject, yes. For the appearance of that subject in other works, no. Primary sources (the work itself) has generally been the acceptable threshold. There has never been consensus about the need for anything further. ◄Zahakiel► 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, why do we not include every single reference ever? --Eyrian 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Come on now, you should not resort to slippery-slope arguments to prove a point. Arguments like, "This will lead to problems later on" have been routinely rejected in AfDs and RfCs. I have no objection to removing mere "glancing" mentions of a concept in a work of literature or fiction, but in the cases where there is a major plot point or at least key feature, I believe (and this is supported by the overwhelming precedent for Wikipedia) this is worth mentioning. I'm not saying there won't be problems, POV and otherwise; I am not saying there won't be disputes, that's fine... but making a gated community isn't the way to go about resolving it. I actually agree with some of the revisions and retractions you've made at times, but you're going to have a much easier time if you try to discuss these changes before acting unilaterally. You think you have policy on your side, but people seem to be reading them a lot more flexibly than you do, and I don't accept that the others are all "misguided" because of that disagreement. Nobody likes cricisism, I'm sure you included... there's an easier way to improve the encyclopedia than the hard-line process you've undertaken. I hope you take this to heart. ◄Zahakiel► 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, why do we not include every single reference ever? --Eyrian 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- For information about the subject, yes. For the appearance of that subject in other works, no. Primary sources (the work itself) has generally been the acceptable threshold. There has never been consensus about the need for anything further. ◄Zahakiel► 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need an expert to specifically say that it's significant, just someone to comment on it. That demonstrates significance. Citing sources, and insisting on their presence, has always been the best way to go about building the site. --Eyrian 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- My point, sir, is that words like "substantial" and "significant" are hugely POV terms. You cannot always demonstrate it by having some expert say "Yes, this is significant." This is why common sense is built in to the system, and this is why your ignoring of that, and consensus in many cases, leads to alienation; it is not because of your nobility or self-assessed advanced understanding of the guidelines and policies of this encyclopedia, but because of your rigidity. That has never been a useful way to go about building this site, and it's receiving its expected reaction - it is simply indefensible. ◄Zahakiel► 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You've got that backwards. You need to attribute the impact of popular culture references on the perception of the concept if the article is "The perception of X in popular culture." What we have here, and in many other articles that have fallen under your critical eye of late, is a set of examples that show the impact of the concept on works in the culture. That's precisely what this article is doing. I realize that you hold to an (oft stated) position that this is not important (to you), but really... with the courses your past few AfDs have taken, and the resistance you are getting with your consensus-defying edits to long-standing articles, one would think you'd try to work within the community rather than pushing your assertions like, "This needs to dramatically affect the wholesale view of the concept to be important." That's not policy; there is no policy outlawing examples if this type, that's opinion, even with your recent "tweaks" to the policy and guideline pages you then turn around and cite. The WP:TRIVIA guideline is a nice shield, but that was created to prevent long and unmanagable lists of banal details about a particular topic. Even when applied to articles it recommends deletion as only one of a variety of options, and emphasizes that Wikipedia policies (including the cooperative element) are not to be ignored. What you are doing with it is a sure path to alienating a whole lot of editors, as you're finding out even now. Maybe you don't care about that much, but it's certainly going to make site building a challenge. ◄Zahakiel► 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify, writing is generally a process of making allusions. Similarities to mythology and cultural commons are omnipresent. Mentioning the origin of these names is absolutely appropriate, but usually only in the work that does the referencing, not the other way around, unless the work has had an impact on the general perception. And that impact, of course, needs to be proven in accordance with Wikipedia policies about attributability. --Eyrian 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
