Talk:Daniel 8

New?

There's no talk here? Is this new? Are there any other articals related to Daniel chapter 8? Rush4hire 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is new. Look at the links at the bottom to see some related links Allenroyboy 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first edit. Hope I did it right. I added the last sentence in the article, which I thought was an important update regarding the dating of the book of Daniel as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls finally began to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteveslater (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

paraphrase illustration

The illustration merely takes the Bible as it is written (NIV) and physically arranges the texts into parallel according to obvious related words, and phrases. This is exactly what the word paraphrase means. There is nothing new added to the Bible or taken away. This is completely a NPOV. Allenroyboy 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Original Research tag has been added because this article appears to contain the analysis and interpretation of a single individual (judging by the article's edit history), with no reference to any secondary sources (Daniel commentaries, monographs, articles, etc.). What may be an "obvious" analysis to you may not be to others. This may be a worthwhile article, but please improve it by adding the views of some commentators and other experts on the subject. Thanks, Tonicthebrown 09:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The pharaphrase illustration is just that, a paraphrase where a statement or remark {the Bible verse} is explained in other words or another way, so as to simplify or clarify its meaning. The source is the Bible. The dream and the interpretation/s in the text were simply put in another way-- i.e., side by side. It still says exactly the same thing as the original text. Allenroyboy 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the "paraphrase" or illustration in itself. It is that the analysis is based on someone's private judgment, without any citation or verification. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means it must be supported by a published work. In this case we would be looking for a qualified commentator on Daniel, or something similar. Thanks Tonicthebrown 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the analysis?" Are you refering to "Synthesis of the Dream and Interpretation", "Proposed Identifications of the Kingdoms", or "Principles of Interpretation?"

The "Synthesis of the Dream and Interpretation" is merely a restatment or paraphrease of the illustration. The "Proposed Identifications of the Kingdoms" merely repeates the identifications done within the text. The "Principles of Interpretation?" just reiterates what the texts say that certain symbols mean. Allenroyboy 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I have not been clear in my explanation. By "the analysis" I am referring mainly to the table/illustration under "Parallel Paraphrase of the Dream and Interpretation". However the article as a whole needs references. As I said, it would be appropriate to make use of some good Daniel commentaries from across a range of Christian POVs. Tonicthebrown 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why you are concerned about the parallel paraphrase illustrations for Daniel 7 and 8 and yet have not said anything about the parallel paraphrase illustration in the Daniel 2 article. I made and placed that illustration (and the table at the end). And, I used EXACTLY the same literary methodology for all three illustrations. I wonder if you have read the illustrations in comparison with the actual text. The illustrations read, from top to bottom--left to right, just like the original text. Allenroyboy 04:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The table in Daniel 2 article is original research as well. Tonicthebrown 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia Paraphrase page states

"A paraphrase (from the Greek paraphrasis) is a statement or remark explained in other words or another way, so as to simplify or clarify its meaning."

The paraphrase illustration on this page is ONLY a paraphrase, putting the text in another way physically so that the text itself clarifies its own meaning. The paraphrase is NOT an analysis. It is simply a paraphrase. Paraphrasing is a long established and well founded technique on Wikipedia.

And, as was said above, the synthesis is merely a recapitulation of the paraphrased illustration. The only POV is that of the text itself. It does not matter whether someone likes what the text itself says or not. Therefore I am removing false assertion of original research.

If some feel that men's opinions, as expressed in this or that commentary, are needed because they are unable to understand for themselves what the Bible says, they are welcome to add them to the article. ---Christian Skeptic 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit war

Mekeggg: You have introduced what appears to be unsourced material wp:verify and original Research WP:OR. Both of which are not allowed on WP. I will simply note with citation needed the parts that need sources, for now. I could just eliminate your material outright, but I want to give you a chance to find the sources you need. The material introduced by ChristianSkeptic is sourced and not Original Research. It is allowable. Criticisms of various positions are allowed and help keep the article NPOV. I will correct the article to reflect these points. Trabucogold (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn

It cannot be him because as stated in the chapter, he comes during the end times (at the end) which has not happened yet. The text is describing the Antichrist who comes on to the world scene during the last days tribulation period (too many references to list in the Bible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.107.150 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this section is merely a grab bag of arguments with little foundation and easily demonstrated as insubstantial. Once the current arguments there are dealt with, more will be added. It would be better to stick to the scholarship on the issues. --spin (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As predicted more of these arguments have been added and have been responded to and now another has been added. --spin (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison between Antiochus and Rome in chart form

This table is mainly apologetics based not on what the text actually says in relation to history and the context in which the text was written, but on what the apologist wants the text to say. This is known in the business not as "exegesis, but "eisegesis" and has nothing to do with evidence or scholarly analysis. It doesn't help us understand anything about Daniel, merely about the apologist.

Hello, without wanting to be impolite, to assume that your view is exegesis and everything else is eisegesis is unfair, to say the least. Please tell us, where in the book do you see evidence of a specific Jerusalem outlook, which you assume so strongly and which is the only way an Antiochus association can be half-substantiated? Throughout the book a Babylonian origin is not only assumed but stated. Also, where do you see, in the book, an 164 BC date? Nowhere. A 6th century date is assumed and stated. So to be fair, I go by the text and you are eisegesing concepts. But critical scholars say... comes the response. Critical scholars assume a 2nd century date because they do not accept the possibility of predictive prophecy. The strongest argument for a 2nd century date is Antiochus and the strongest argument for Antiochus is a second century date with a very localized outlook. Circular reasoning.

• The following is from the table:

Dan. 8:9 Came out of “one of them” possibly meaning "horns" but more likely "winds" (in the Hebrew the word "them" used is masculine, while the word "horns" is feminine; the word "winds" can be either)

This is a claim to neglect syntax for fact that רוח, "wind" can be both masculine and feminine, yet it is clearly written with a feminine plural suffix, רוחות, in the Hebrew text in Dan 8:8, so there is no reason to favor the syntactically improbable choice for what the pronoun refers back to. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p.302 say "The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent".

I have been using Bible Works and it does not give "winds" as feminine. If you give a few examples of masculine pronouns used with feminine antecedents, I will be happy to remove the above comment. However, you have not answered the second part of the comment, yet you claim in absolute fashion that the pronoun points back to horns. You can believe so, but there is room for disagreement.

• Again from this table:

Dan. 8:9 “grew exceedingly great” compared to Alexander (“very great”) and the Medo-Persian Empire (“great”)

The "Medo-Persian Empire" is a modern fabrication that in no way reflects Daniel or reality. It is based on an apologetic revision of history in order to manipulate the significance of Daniel for fundamentalist Christian purposes. The Persians, originally vassals of Media, gained hegemony under Cyrus the Great and imposed vassalage on the Medes. This is derived from all ancient sources that make the situation transparent. Ancient sources dealing with the two kingdoms in the context of the succession of kingdoms present them separately. See for example Polybius 38.22, Velleius Paterculus Bk 1.6.6 and Tac. H. 5.8.4.

Daniel on several occasions refers to the "Medes and the Persians" (5:28; 6:8,12,15) in the same context. He never refers to the Medes alone. According to history Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, but according to Daniel Darius the Mede ruled it. So there is plenty of scope within Daniel to see the two working together and many commentators accept such a connection.

The comparison "great," 'very great," "exceedingly great," is there but you somehow overlook it on the basis of a presumed (by you) Jerusalem viewpoint. Who is doing injustice to the text? Not me.

• One doesn't simply omit evidence -- the information about the king in 8:23-25 -- as the latest form of the table has because it doesn't fit one's views.

In Daniel the concepts of king and kingdom are interrelated. In Daniel 2 Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the gold head, yet the one who follows him is not Nabonidus or Belshazzar, but the empire of Medo-Persia indicating that the king represents the kingdom. Nonetheless, if you feel this is an important point, make your own chart and put it there.

• The following claim from the table is ingenuous:

If the book was written in 164 BC as the persecutions had reached a climax, why could Daniel not understand the vision?

Obviously the text is written from the point of view of someone living long in the past. The understanding of the text is for those who are living in the time of the writer, not the character Daniel.

Why then are Greece and Medo-Persia named?

• The basic analysis is one which refuses to acknowledge the scholarly consensus understanding of the text. It requires one to ignore that consensus view and to make a straw man from it. That consensus sees the visions of Daniel as having been written circa 164 BCE with the character Daniel represented as having visions in Mesopotamia of a future that the writer was experiencing. The Daniel character is not necessarily meant to understand them. But the writer sees himself as living in the end times and if this is so he sees events from that time and not from the hindsight of the person who put up the Wiki table in this entry. Such reading with hindsight is misunderstanding the text and the scholarly consensus.

Consensus means nearly all agree. Not all agree here. Evangelical Christians do not accept the 2nd century BC date and there is a good number of scholars who see Rome in the Little Horn. Jesus did not accept it. Most of the Fathers and the early rabbis did not accept it. So, we are in good company. There is no scholarly consensus, there is a majority scholarly view.

• People who are in conflict while editing entries should discuss the conflict here in the entry's talk. --spin (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

---

It is clear that the person who put up this table won't read the discussion material and puts this sort of coment in the text itself:

(Please do not alter or remove this chart. It is unethical to change another person's work to say the opposite of what was originally intended. It is also unethical to silence divergent views by refusing them a forum. This wiki article is about biblical interpretation and since a variety of views exist a variety of views need to be represented here. The reader can then decide what to accept. If you want to argue in favor of Antiochus or against Rome, please start your own subheading and build your own chart. Thank you.)

Naturally if the person misrepresents the data and the scholarly consensus, the reader cannot "then decide what to accept." --spin (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies that I have not made my comment here. I am new to editing wiki and was not aware of protocol. I will not add again any comment there. However, your determination to enforce one view at the expense of others is exasperating. Do you feel threatened by other views? There is a section about the association of the Little Horn with Antiochus and when I tried to enter a comment you tampered with it. When however, one brings in an alternative view, for every comment made you insert a attempted rebuttal; you take my chart and reshape it to say the exact opposite; you delete my comments at will. Again, do you feel threatened by opposing views? Or do you feel you have been divinely appointed to serve as the theological police of this article? Please write your comments in your section and let others express their views in their sections and let the readers judge for themselves. An encyclopedia article by definition must cover a spectrum of views even if to you they seem foolish (to me Antiochus seems foolish).

As for misrepresenting data, I beg to differ. I simply quote Scripture and give my opinion as to whether Antiochus or Rome fit. How is this "misrepresenting"? By contrast, you are the one who has to represent data from your perspective by adding such references not found in the text as, from a Jerusalem perspective, or from a 164 BC perspective. It is obvious that you feel the text itself does not support your conclusions and you have to add your "clarifications" to make the two fit.

Thank you.

---

The whole irrational attempt at linguistics fails due to lack of understanding of the language: for example, the attempt to make רוחות masculine when it clearly has a feminine ending (as I have indicated above); the terrible argument based on יצא and עלה shows a lack of comprehension of these verbs. I will remove this stuff now as linguistic charlatanry.

And when you post to talk you should sign your comments, the easiest way being to use the tenth button above the edit box. --spin (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove anything. Counter-argue if you want but do not remove. What you term "charlatanry" has been noted by a foremost professor of Hebrew and OT.

Please cite me this "foremost professor of Hebrew". If he is important in Hebrew philology from the time of BDB onwards, I'll have heard of him, as this is my field. --spin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have higher credentials lets hear them; if not, hold your peace.--Timotheus7 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When one posts obviously tendentious material dressed in philological errors, you don't expect the errors to stand. --spin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not use the phrase "scholarly consensus" again. It is erroneous and I have pointed this out already. Its use is a deliberate attempt to create impressions.--Timotheus7 (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Find me one scholarly commentary on Daniel, ie one published by a professor of a recognized state university which supports the views you would like to be scholarly. From what you've posted you obviously don't know the scholarly material available and are not in the position. To understand the range of world recognized scholars on the issue, get hold of "The Book of Daniel", ed Collins & Flint, Vol 1 & 2, Brill 2002, and look at the representatives of the scholarly consensus. --spin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already put this info in the article. Read the noted work produced by a group of excellent scholars and it might enlighten your understanding. The Adventist Church has many top rate scholars who do not uphold the Antiochus parody. So, no consensus. It appears you are a Christian (or am I wrong?) so it is interesting that the words of Jesus carry to weight with you. In my view, they have more weight than all the scholarly opinions.--Timotheus7 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The chart on Antiochus is pretty warped, but unlike you I respect people's right to hold alternative views. However, on the section of "Sequence" a blatant fallacy is stated; Antiochus, did not move in the directions stated in the order stated. Substantiate, or I will remove the statement and challenge the truthfulness of the section.

Perhaps you should read the books of the Maccabees and see Jewish perceptions of the period.

And I really don't know how you can seriously purvey Rome as the little horn, when the little horn is clearly shown to be a king in Gabriel's explanation. I know there is a long tradition of insinuating Rome into Daniel, but there is only one clear reference to Rome in the book at 11:30, made transparent in the Old Greek. --spin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered the king/kingdom earlier. The long tradition of seeing Rome in Daniel also nullifies your comment on consensus. Don't 19 centuries of interpretation matter? Is it a coincidence that Antiochus gained prominence only after the rise of historical critical approaches to the Bible?--Timotheus7 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you need to remove the highlighting of my section as dubious.--Timotheus7 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put it there. --spin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems there are some fervent anti Adventists around. They have tried to change a discussion about the Little Horn of Daniel 8 into an anti Adventist tirade. I would suggest we stick to the topic, the association of the Little Horn with Rome is not an Adventist interpretation but goes back centuries. It also seems that some are intolerant of opposite views, they are determined this encyclopedia article supports one view only and everything else is trashed. Chill out friends and allow others not only the right to believe otherwise, but to express their views as well. Thank you.--Timotheus7 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

The modernist view (not scholarly view - that is a biased statement) is given substantially more text than other views in this article, as is the wiki article on Daniel 7. The bias here is regrettable, and this article needs to be written to credibly present the various views. The best place to start is to rename the "scholarly view" the "modernist view". There is obviously a lack of balance - and I am neither an Adventist nor a pre-trib futurist. After reading Daniel 7 on wiki, I am so disgusted with the lack of commitment to presenting views in a balanced manner, I question whether it is worth my time to edit. There are a number of scholars who do not separate the Medes and Persians, and who view the objections to a late date of Daniel as largely outdated in light of current research. I have no doubt that modernists, some of whom start with the assumption that Daniel is not a prophet because they reject the supernatural, would be undeterred by any contemporary scholarship in the area of archaelogy, language usage, etc. But there should be some commitment to balance - which is sadly lacking from this and at least one other article. I apologize if anyone is offended by my statements, but modernism should not be the primary force of an article that gives an overview. --Baxterguy (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Let's see it improved. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Baxterguy, you are so right. I changed two items. (1) Daniel 11 as "proof" (I changed this to "evidence"). What kind of "proof" is Daniel 11? Has it been tested in a laboratory? When it relates to matters of interpretation, "evidence" is a more correct word than "proof". (2) In the section "Arguments against Antiochus Epiphanes and scholarly objections" I removed the word "scholarly". It presupposes that those who oppose the Antiochus identification are not "scholarly". What bigotry. Encyclopedia articles should treat fairly all views without derogatory or loaded terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any serious editor here responsible for what goes on???? Someone has been adding "red herring" or "bogus" next to everything I wrote and he is allowed to get away with it. Is this an encyclopedia article or a mickey mouse forum?? Also, this article is about Daniel 8 not about the Adventist church. As noted in the relevant section many Jewish and Christian scholars of different persuasions and great note over many centuries (including Jesus!!!) agreed with the identification of the Little Horn with Rome. Why are Adventists singled out for hateful attacks? If there is an official wiki editor for this article act, or pass the mantle to someone else.--Timotheus7 (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is not an unbiased editor for this article. Your comments are valid. There is a lot of POV pushing and editorializing. You and Baxterguy have been some of the most ballanced and logical editors seen so far. erase those bogus and red herring notes with my blessing. Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprised

Why this article gives so much space to a minority religious interpretation as the Seventh Day Adventist position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.22.165 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This article appears wildly unencyclopedic

im having trouble wrapping my brain around this article. Is it talking about a chapter of the old testament, describing differences in translation, and historic interpretations, including the modern, academic one? or is it straight Christian doctrine, which assumes that the Bible is the word of god? i think a newcomer to this subject would get the wrong idea about what is found in wikipedia. i checked the article on Daniel here, and it seemed to be a good example of how to write an article on a bible chapter or passage. the charts here seem to give no context as to who created them, and what church the person may be connected to. im not going to touch anything here, as i dont feel safe that people are going to assume good faith on my part. I wish someone with some knowledge of the bible could look at this article, and then take a step back and try to see it through the eyes of a nonbeliever, a jew, a muslim, a scientist, a linguist, a layperson, a person with no contact with this tradition, and (my reference point), an intelligent alien species trying to learn about our world. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article a terrible mess

This needs a major rewrite to get rid of tables. Very non-wiki.... 8teenfourT4 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took 2 years. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

purged section

I've removed the following section:

Synthesis of the Dream and given Interpretation

Image: Dan8parallel.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Parallel paraphrase of Dream and Interpretation. The text is arranged to read top-to-bottom, and parallel left-to-right. (Words in bold font indicate parallel phrases. Colors demarcate the different kingdoms.

In the latter part of the chapter, Daniel is given the interpretation of the dream. This is a synthesis of the vision with the given interpretation.

The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.

Representing Greece (more accurately, Macedonia), the Goat comes from the west, crossing the earth without touching the ground. Greece charges the ram in great rage. It shatters the horns (i.e. kings—see below) of Media and Persia and knocks the ram to the ground and tramples it.

But at the height of Greece's power, its great horn—i.e. King ["The large horn between his eyes is the first king"]--is broken off and four other kings grow up toward the four winds.

Then an unidentified king, a stern-faced master of intrigue, comes on the scene. He starts small but will become very strong, yet not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will cause deceit to prosper. When they feel secure, he will destroy many.

He will grow to the south, then east and toward the "beautiful land" and destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will consider himself superior to the "hosts of heaven' and claim to be as great as and take his stand against the "Prince of the princes."

He steals the 'daily sacrifice' and denigrates the "sanctuary" of the "Prince of hosts" The saints and sacrifice are put under his tyranny and truth is thrown down.

Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

Someone asks about how long that part of the vision that deals with the daily sacrifice, the rebellion, the surrender of the sanctuary and the host would last. It was to last 2300 "evening and mornings."

After that, the sanctuary, which had been debased and soiled, would be cleansed and reconsecrated.

This material needs to be well-sourced. It cannot remain in the article, uncited as it is. 207.181.235.214 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the reinsertion of the material above. The inserting editor suggested in their edit summary, "the image is a paraphrase of the chapter following WP policy. The synthesis is a straight forward synthesis of prophecy and given interpretation. careful of getting charged with vandalism."

In point of fact, the image is based exclusively upon the uncited material in the text, which was removed because it is unsourced and seems quite likely a product of Original Research. I am not adverse to the inclusion of the material; I am saying it must be heavily cited before it can be reintroduced. As a smarter man than me once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ('evidence' in this case meaning citable references). - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please cite one or two examples of statements you consider to be OR/unsourced, as opposed to "summarizing or rephrasing"? If Daniel 8 says one place that the goat charges the ram in great rage, and at another place it says the goat is the king of Greece, what is the problem with an article that says "Greece charges the ram in great rage"? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the entire section is unsourced, making examples somewhat moot. There are no sources present. As for the example you presented, it is considered Synthesis, and not usable in Wikipedia. It is you combining the two different statements into a blended statement - we cannot do this because you are not notably citable. Find a reliable source that does that, and we are good. Make sure the source is reliable an notable, or we are going to run into the same issue. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The synthesis is simply a restatement of the parallel paraphrase in the illustration for those who do not want to take the time to read the parallel paraphrase in the illustration. A paraphrase is a restatement of the original text in different words or in a different way. The parallel paraphrase provided here simply restates the original in a different way, clearly showing by relative position the obvious relationship in the text between the vision and the given interpretation.

The "synthesis" does not need sources because it is like the previous "vision" section in that it is simply a summary/synthesis of the paraphrased text. If you take a look at the history of this article you will find that the synthesis section was added first and then someone later added the "vision" section, which is actually superfluous. The "vision" section ought to be removed instead or the two section combined. perhaps it is simply the word sythesis that is the problem.  ??? --8teenfourT4 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is the multiple interpretations of the word 'synthesis' currently in English parlance. However, we need only be concerned with Wikipedia policy and guidelines' version of it.

We, as editors, are not allowed to make any interpretations of text. This means we cannot join two pieces of similar information because they seem obvious to us or closely related. We allow the reader to make their own connections, or we find ample and reliable citation to connect them. We MUST be outside of this connection process; otherwise, we become a blog or something like that collection of apple-picking folk with blinders, Conservapedia.

We are charged with creating concise articles, but the effort for brevity should not and cannot translate as an effort by the editors to pre-digest the material for the reader. If a claim of connection is made, it must be made independent of us editors. That means that either we have a citation for that connection, or we leave it to the reader to decide for themselves. This has been borne out in repeated discussions at noticeboards across the wiki-en.

The history of the article notwithstanding, I removed that bit which was most glaringly without citation, If you feel there are others that require citation, you should feel compelled to tag/remove those sections also. I placed the removed sections here, since some effort was clearly put into them, and I retain hope that reliably-sourced citation can be found so they can be included. Without that citation, they cannot be included. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your view of Wikipedia policy is a little one-sided. Sure, we must follow WP:No original research, but note the exact title of the relevant section: WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position (emphasis added). This makes it pretty clear that the problem is not "synthesis" per se, but "advancing a position", i.e. introducing a non-neutral POV. The discussion at WP:These are not original research also helps elucidate the NOR policy. A number of sections there come close to the situation we are discussing, and certainly the spirit of those examples applies to straightforward juxtaposition of details from various parts of Daniel 8.

That said, I don't know the best way to help the reader learn about and understand this chapter of Daniel. It may be best to first describe the vision and then describe the interpretation given. It may be best to intersperse the two, but clearly identify which is which. Or it may be best to simply meld them in a concise way. All of these approaches are permitted by policy.

--Art Carlson (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for pointing me to the essay; so many get written that an interesting one often gets missed. :)

Secondly, because this is not only religious material, but almost entirely symbolic in nature, extra care must be taken when describing the material. This isn't 'Chuckles Begat Bumpy, who begat Beppo'. This is highly subjective material, subject to interpretation (and it could be argue that such was the intent at the time of its initial writing and subsequent editing over the ages). For that reason alone, we are far better off using notable and reliable sources to present any real descriptions or interpretations of the material.

The problem here is that the purged material does advance a point of view. For example:

"The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great."

If that isn't an interpretation, I'll eat a tin of spam (and I loathe spam). Some of the clues - apart from the obvious interpretive value of the statement - is the use of the word "media" - a word unlikely in use before the 17th century (long after the book of Daniel was written/edited). It is the usage of the word that advances a position, ie. that media is not only foretold in the ancient text, but that it is specifically represented and discussed. Subsequent similar juxtapositions likewise do not constitute a compilation of fact, because deduction and (often) a religious background is required to make the connection.

The only way around this quandary is to use citations from theologians and other academics who interpret the material. Their interpretations are wholly acceptable for use, so long as we provide countering opinion, if such citable references are in fact present. I think your suggestion of offering the text as it appears (noting the version of the Bible used), followed by cited interpretations sounds promising. The way it is presented currently is painting a bulls-eye target on the article for deletion. And that wold be a shame. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the nature of the material requires "extra care" (though not to the point of paralysis). In the example you cite, I have to agree with you.

Verse 3 (NASB): Then I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last.

Verse 20: The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.

Now it is certainly a reasonable and, I believe, an uncontroversial interpretation that "the first [horn] represent[s] Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, represent[s] Persia", but you are correct that the text of Daniel does not directly support that and therefore is a tad more than "1+1=2". If someone wants to keep this section, then they should go through it and eliminate this and any other intepretations (even though they may be relatively harmless), or provide a source that the interpretation is at least common if not universal. Thanks for the clarification. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am for inclusion as well, so long as the material (as well as interpretations) are well-cited. Doing so bullet-proofs the article from challenge. :) - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In the later sections of the article are given two different interpretations, Scholarly and Historicist, of this vision. Yet neither one argues against any points in the "synthesis". In fact, all the points of the "synthesis" are accepted as given by both sides.

Originally the synthesis on Media-Persia read:

The ram, Media-Persia, had two horns, one longer than the other. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.

This is precisely what it says in Daniel 8. A "Doktorspin" added the offending interpretation back in Nov 2008. Originally, as you can see, the section had no interpretation. Interpretations are given later. I missed this insertion of interpretation into the descriptive section. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd point out that my removal isn't the CureAll for the artcle; it was simply the most egregious example. Everything needs citation, especially when touching anything approaching allegory, I am sure someone can dig up citations from theologians. If necessary, I'll trim the remainder of the uncited claims as well. I'm hoping that someone with better research skills on religion can find the necessary citations. I do not accept any amount of synthesis unless it done by a cited source. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I keep removing unsourced material, and it's growing tedious. If you have a citation for any interpretive comments, please feel free to add them. If you don't know how to cite material, come to the talk page and someone will lend a hand in showing you how to do so. Just putting in unreferenced interpretation will be removed every time. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not OR. It is paraphrase of the following text:

15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."

17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.

19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. [b] 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

26 "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future."

The article is about the contents of Daniel 8 and one does not need to cite sources when paraphrasing an original document. This is especially true of a source like the Bible which can be easily checked on-line for accuracy. What one does need sources for are peoples opinions about the meaning of Daniel 8 and its vision and given interpretation as understood throughout history and in modern times. Which is what the rest of the article has. --8teenfourT4 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to paraphrase in this case, because it requires you to synthesize two different statements to create a third. You are interpreting that two different passages are related. For that, we need citation - for the Bible passage at the very least. As I understand it, there are at least two different readings of the Book of Daniel. Are you having difficulty finding citable references for this material?

Btw, I've removed the material added yet again, Until we reach some consensus on this matter, I would ask that you abstain from adding it again. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What planet are you from? This is a paraphrase from a single source--the original source--the Book of Daniel in the Bible as quoted above. There is no combining of two statements into one. Can't you comprehend what you read?

Two different readings of the Book of Daniel? What nonsense is that. No you don't understand. While there are several dozen translations of the Bible into English, no one consider them different readings, just translations. The Scholars do not argue against what the Bible says, but against how conservative interpret what it means.

I find your objections inane ramblings of an ignoramus and your deletions pure vandalism. --8teenfourT4 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to ask you to remember to be more civil, sport. I have made a reasonable request that we discuss the matter and reach a satisfactory conclusion. Re-adding the material via edit-warring and characterizing the other fellow as a vandal will not help you get your way. You do get that, right? You are not going to be able to force the issue. I am going to ask that you voluntarily self-revert, or I will take the matter to AN/I. I don;t want to have to do that, but you are making this far more combative than it needs to be. You will have until midnight (GMT-6) to do so. Please do not test me on this; this isn't a pissing contest. If it were, I'd easily be able to drown you. Be nice or begone.

There at least two versions of the Christian Bible: the New International version, the King James and the Hebrew Bible (Daniel being in the Ketuvim); all are notably different in tone and emphasis.I am stating without equivocation that you need to cite the source of your comments. As well, you would need to cite in our conversation where "The Scholars do not argue against what the Bible says, but against how conservative interpret what it means," since I do not recognize your authority to evaluate what the Scholars do and do not agree upon. If you are in face a biblical scholar, please disclose that; consider that it won;t make any difference, but will instead beg the question as to why you are bringing insults instead of citations to the discussion.

Again, I am asking that you provide citations for your source material. You may not paraphrase the material. Period. Ask an admin if you need help understanding this. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We are required by policy and editorial good sense to paraphrase the contents of the subject of this article. You were able to cite an example in the previous version that went just a little bit too far. Can you cite an example of such in the new, shorter version? It is not true that paraphrasing is not allowed. It is not true that every statement requires a citation. If you cannot name a concrete problem with this new material, leave it alone. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We are allowed to paraphrase so long as - while paraphrasing - we neither use direct quotes without quotation marks and attribution or fail to cite the passages we are paraphrasing. This particular book of the Bible (like Revelations) is rife with interpretive value, and utmost care must be taken to stay as far away from editorial interpretation as possible.

The copy with the reverted text is that it is not cited. Furthermore, the specific text from the Bible needs to be quoted as such. When using specific language, it must be bracketed by quotation marks; if you are aware of another policy regarding this, please point it out.

I am not intimating that Gabriel needs to cite the interpretation, but that we need to make note of the translation, version and material being used to deliver that interpretation. There are notable differences between the KJ Bible and that of, say, the Ketuvim version of this book. In short, what one Bible says about Daniel's revelations are not the same as another Bible's version. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

By default, these articles on the Book of Daniel are from translations of the Bible that do not reflect the post-Jesus revisionism of the current Hebrew Ketuvim. In the Masoretic (and similar) text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint (the last two predate Jesus) the book of Daniel is very similar with but minor and typical translation differences. If you wish to point out that the CE revised Ketuvim reads differently, then add a section to the article pointing out the differences. Perhaps add a note in the introduction that the current Hebrew text is different and link to a larger section below.

The differences between English translations are so minor that no one really pays much attention to them. This is because translation is an art, not a science. Having multiple translations is a plus because it allows the reader to get closer to the original meaning by comparing the translations. Different people see things slightly differently, which gives a richer understanding of the text. But no translator can get away with making wholesale cutting (or adding) of the text to fit their personal beliefs.

One does not need to be a Bible scholar or theologian to understand the Bible and the book of Daniel. Just someone who is willing to let the Bible teach them. Trabucogold (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would the paraphrase be acceptable if we referenced each sentence to a specific verse number? Can you cite a specific verse of Daniel 8 that is significantly different in the KJV than in the Ketuvim? (Do you have a link to an online English version of the Jewish Ketuvim?) --Art Carlson (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a theologian or biblical scholar; I do know from some of my college classes (and from a family member's discussion about revelatory books of the Bible) that the various revelatory of both faiths that overlap have significant difference in how they are interpreted. As Trabuogold correctly pointed out, translation is indeed an art and not a science (supported in part by this article on translation). Therefore, I am not aware of specific differences between the various translations and versions of Daniel. It's one of the main reasons that I am pushing for citation of the material; I don't know any other's qualifications to speak authoritatively about the material, and the Essjay problem pretty much entrenches the idea that no editor's academic qualifications should be assumed.

We need to cite not only the verse number (which should be required anyway) but the version of the Bible and translation being used. What would be even better is if we were able to get some rabbinical input as to the nature of the Book of Daniel as given in the Ketuvim.

I am not tryng to be a dick here; I am trying to build an encyclopedia: with religious revelatory tracts, we need to tread especially carefully, citing so as to avoid any suggestion of OR and synthesis. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

colors

Goofed on colors. Yellow = Gold head Lt Gray = Silver Chest Brown = Bronze Chest Red = Iron (rusted) legs Tan = clay and iron feet Blue = Gods Kingdom. (the 10 Commandments were carved on bluestone tablets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8teenfourT4 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how the coloring scheme is encyclopedic, please. We tend to avoid them, as they are distracting from content. It does nothing to add to content. That said, I am open to listen to your reasoning in desiring the color scheme in the article. Until we arrive at consensus, lets keep it out - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in his defense, color is always preferable so long as it is in good taste. If we strictly followed your point, then all photographs and illustrations must be in black and white because its not encyclopedic otherwise. And, this page shouldn't have any blue on it, it should be just gray. This is the internet and we all have color monitors. I think you protesteth too much, to cover some agenda. Trabucogold (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to do you an enormous favor and AGF that you were joking about me having some secret agenda. I have none, and it is - frankly - stupid to assume that without evidence to the contrary. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a coloring book. One or two colors, maybe. Seven or more? Based upon the crayola user's idea of what brass, clay and iron should be translated via html display? Point out how that benefits the encyclopedia (and ore pointedly, isn't blatant OR)? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP here. By the way, go have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and, more importantly, WP:COLOR. We may "all have color monitors", but not everyone can see every color. There are people out there who are colorblind. As the IP said, try assuming good faith, and the incivility really isn't going to help build a better encyclopedia, so please, instead of laughing at this user, try thinking that their comments may have value, and actually try looking into the subject.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Full disclaimer - I found this thread by checking the contributions of the Ip after I saw a thread on ANI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling the other guy "stupid" is not the best way to respond to perceived incivility.
• It's hard to argue both that the color adds no information and that it prevents color blind people from fully understanding the content.
• I don't see the relevance of either WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:COLOR, and I don't see why the use of color, in and of itself, should be considered non-encyclopedic.
• Until somebody comes up with a relevant policy or can explain why one form benefits the reader more than the other form, all that's left is aesthetics. I personally find the colored table rather ugly, but that could surely be improved.

--Art Carlson (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Art, but I consider the uncivil accusation that I have some secret agenda to be baiting, counterproductive to polite editing and therefore stupid. Maybe it's a spade argument, but there it is. As well, you are misinterpreting the posts above. The color appears to have no contetn based on sources or usefulness, though the person adding them might have had an idea in doing so. Whatever that might have been, colorblind folk would have been at a significant disadvantage to understanding that message.

I find the coloring distracting and it appears obvious that the person adding the color was seeking to make a synthetic connection that is immaterial to the content, useless in understanding and absorbing the content and actually distracting from the content. In the battle between style and substance, I choose substance. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed that Trabucogold's comment about your "agenda" was baseless and uncivil. Still, civility is about being more polite than the other guy, even when you think he's stupid. (a) It is the decent thing to do. (b) It will contribute to a more productive collaborative atmosphere. (c) You will be heaping burning coals on his head.
• I agree the color adds no significant content. Therefore I was dismissing the color-blind argument as irrelevant.
• I see nothing at all obvious about the motive of Trabucogold when he added the color. Maybe he will enlighten us. I certainly don't see what the "synthetic connection" is supposed to be. Please pick a course of argument and stick to it. If the color adds no content, then it cannot be synthesis. If the color adds no substance, then you don't have to choose between style and substance.
• You valid arguments boil down to "the color is distracting". It's hardly a knock-em-down argument, but it is legitimate. Go with it.

--Art Carlson (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing, Art. In the future, I will endeavor to not hit back, instead gently seeking to sway the other person's view, at first with soft pillows before resorting to heavier items :). I do think however,t hat you are seeking to reframe my opposition to the coloring of the text. While I too would welcome Trab's input as to the edit adding the coloring, I can oppose the use of the coloring on multiple grounds. Individually they might seem on their face somewhat minor; seen together, they are a solid reasoning for avoidance. I consider all of my reasons "valid" and "legitimate"; otherwise, I wouldn't offer them. AGF, remember?

The coloring was added to interpret that clay is tan, iron is gray, etc. That's interpretation, since it could easily be argued that tan could be hide,or that gray could be ram's horn, or that plaid isn't indicative of many poor fashion choices (that last bit was a joke, btw). The coloring adds no content, and the reason for adding it is based upon synthesis assumptions. As well, there exists a valid concern that any value that the coloring might offer would be negated by bad monitors or color-blindness. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations, once again

The following section, added by Art Carlson:

The interpretation of Gabriel (inserted before "Principles of interpretation")

In the second half of the book, Gabriel explained the meaning of the vision to Daniel. Gabriel first said the vision pertained to the time of the end, and then interprets the details.

The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king. (v.21) The broken horn and the four that arise in its place represent four lesser kingdoms which will arise from his nation. (v.22)

In the latter period of their rule, a king will arise. (v. 23) He will be insolent, powerful, destructive, and prosperous. He will destroy the holy people. (v.24) He will even oppose the "Prince of princes", but he will ultimately be broken, although without human agency. (v.25)

Gabriel affirms the truth of the vision of the evenings and mornings, but admonishes Daniel to keep the vision secret.

After having this vision, Daniel reports being exhausted and sick for days.

Again, we aren't adding who is providing the interpretations. I am not speaking of the angel explaining it; I am referring to the source material providing the translation. As I have pointed out at least a few times before, we need that. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The summary does not and should not depend on any particular translation. I haven't done it yet, but I want to look through 3 or 4 of the most popular translations to verify that there are no significant differences. If we find any content that is sensitive to the translation, then I am fully in favor of pointing that out. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The interpretation is given in the chapter itself. It isn't Art's interpretation, It isn't my interpretation. It isn't any modern person's interpretation. All that Art did was paraphrase what the text says itself and give the text references. One doesn't need "sources" to simply restate what the text says. For those who are skeptical, all that is needed is a link to some site like BibleGateway.com which has hundreds of on-line translations of the Bible in dozens of languages all completely search able and free to read/copy/quote etc. The link can be made to any specific text or set of texts. Trabucogold (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have pointed out repeatedly that the translation/version of Daniel ITSELF requires citation, as there are numerous interpretations based upon the version or translation. We are NOT talking about the interpretation being given within the text. Are we clear on that point? Not to be blunt, but its a waste of time to keep reiterating that. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have pointed that out repeatedly, and yes, it is a waste of time. It's not that we haven't heard you, but that we don't agree with you. I claim that all the translations say essentially the same thing. They are, after all, based on the same manuscripts. It would be wrong for us to say, according to the KJV, Daniel 8 says such-and-such, rather than simply, Daniel 8 says such-and-such. If you can nevertheless point out a serious discrepancy between translations of Daniel 8, we would be grateful and can continue this discussion. --Art Carlson (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You should feel completely at liberty to prove that the different versions are identical. Not "essentially the same thing" but identical. We both know that you cannot substantiate such a claim. The King James Bible, the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Satanic Bible are all based on the same manuscripts as well, and yet they are substantially different from one another. See, by citing the source (kind of the purpose of having citations in the first place), we allow the reader to know that we aren't presuming that any one religious source (say, the KJV) isn't being presumed to be the "correct" one. Neutrality is important here, and it wiggles in somewhat insidiously in religious discussions.

Allow me to cut the various nonsense and propose a solution that will work while still keeping this an encyclopedia. Simply cite the source of the material. If its the KJ Bible, simply say so in a citation. Don't say "scholars say" - name the scholars. Its OR under the veneer of some unnamed authority to do anything else.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, I consider any usage of the phrase "according to scholars" without citation as deceptive original research. I've tagged the parts I've found, and have noticed that at least one point of the article where the word scholars has been wikified was redirected to another part of the same article. I find it inordinately disingenuous.

And, as I said before, I am not a religious scholar. Is it such a problem to insist that we cite our sources? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're going over the edge here. My contention is not that all translations are identical (How silly can you get?), but that all translations of Daniel 8 are consistent with my paraphrase. I think we are allowed to restrict ourselves to English translations here, otherwise we would have to start talking about translations of the translations, so we can throw Hebrew translations of the Bible out of the discussion. Neither the Book of Mormon nor The Satanic Bible includes any version of the Book of Daniel. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Are you proposing something like this?

This paraphrase of the content is based on and consistent with the following English translations: New International Version, New American Standard Bible, The Message, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, King James Version, English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New King James Version, New Century Version, 21st Century King James Version, American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, Darby Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, New International Version - UK, and Today's New International Version.

--Art Carlson (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "according to scholars" without citation is "bad". I assume that the instances in this article are neither intentional deception nor disingenuity. I go for either sloppiness of WIP. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing your points, Art:

If you can cite that all translations of Daniel are consistent, please feel free to do so. It is precisely because there are differences between the different Judeo-Christian sources as to the literal translation and meaning of Daniel (and other revelatory works of the Bible) that we reference a source, We do not presume that x-version of the Bible is the sole authority on the matter. As for the comparison between different religions, all draw on the same source material. Because each of these different religions are based in Judeo-Christian writings and historical references, it becomes necessary to cite the source of the translation source being used.

Unless we are willing to use only the Aramaic or Greek texts of the Bible, there are going to be differences in how the Bible is written for its particular sect of readers. By citing the source of the text being used, we avoid the appearance of favoritism and the slippery slope of personal interpretation. Each Bible is written specifically for the sect of believers it is seeking to educate. Not all Bibles are the same, their content, interpretations and arrangements often being different.

No, I am not proposing something as cumbersome as your example above (unless you have a citable reference that explicitly says that), since you aren't citable as a source for evaluating differentiation. Instead, I think that simply citing that the translation being used is from 'x' version of the Bible should be good enough. When some enterprising historian or theologian comes along who can shed light on the differences, they have an established way to do so.

While I appreciate and applaud your good faith as to the edits referring to scholars, they keep getting added in, without references. It's akin to the boor at a party talking about some unnamed "experts" that support their point of view. Maybe disingenuous is too harsh; lazy, absolutely. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is going nowhere.

• My paraphrase of verse 21: The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king.
• New International Version: The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.
• New American Standard Bible: The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
• King James Version: And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
• English Standard Version: And the goat [Or, the shaggy goat] is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king.
• American Standard Version: And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
• Young's Literal Translation: And the young he-goat, the hairy one, [is] the king of Javan; and the great horn that [is] between its eyes is the first king;
• Today's New International Version: The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king.
• ... and on and on.

What the hell do you want?! --Art Carlson (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To start with, a more civil tone in your head; if you cannot seem to muster that, begone. I don't want to revisit this subject with an administrator.

Secondly, choose a translation and cite it. I didn' think I was speaking Greek or Aramaic when I said that, though I do note that you weren't proffering wither one of those original translations as source material. Avoid paraphrasing material when you can state explicitly a verse; your paraphrasing removes descriptive material that might or might not be true to the original translation. This is crucial when dealing with material that is widely subject to interpretation. If you were employed as a biblical translator or a theologian, you could cite where you have been published paraphrasing this material; as you have not yet done so, I must presume you are neither.

Perhaps I need to make this even more simplified.

"The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king" (Daniel 8:19), followed by a referencing to the source Bible being used, be it NIV, NAV, etc. In case you lot my point yet again, I am stating that we must specifically cite the Bible source, and use the specific text from that source, not paraphrasing what we feel is the proper mash-up of all the versions. If you have a source that compares the versions of Daniel, sally forth and present it. Otherwise, we sidestep the issue of Blatant Scribal Corruption (ie. invading armies rewriting history, transcription ineptitude or bias, etc.) and cite the specific source we are using. If at some later point another contributor notes an interpretational difference, they can bring it up. We do not paraphrase biblical passages, as doing so glossed over possible errors of translation or version.

If possible, allow me to be more succinct: As per Christian belief, what God does and says is Perfect. The literature of mankind cannot claim preservation by Divine agency, and is therefore subject to interpretation by imperfect humans. Whether by causality (invading armies, ie. history is written by the victors") or human failure or corruption, we cannot cite that a conglomeration/paraphrasing of them is equal to a correction of possible original error. By citing the source of the translation, we avoid all of that, which - to me - seems prudent. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I give up. I don't have anything more to say. You don't have anything more to say. I will leave this discussion until you say something new or another editor (or admin) joins in. At the same time, I will defend the inclusion of a summary of the content. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And I will oppose it for the very reasons I have described above, which you have failed to address. If you feel we are at an impasse, bring the matter up at Third Opinion or another venue. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Does this disagreement all come down to misunderstanding what is meant by the word cite?

In general one would have a citation. This does not mean that you need to say "according to the King James bible..." or anything like that. It just means that you need a little number created using the <ref> tag, that says where you got the information from.

You could argue that this has already been done by providing the verse in brackets. However, I think that it would be preferable to format it in a similar way to some of the later citations. These use biblegateway.com and hence allow anyone to check what the different translations of the bible say. The first sentence of the second paragraph of that section would be something like this.

The goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and its horn is the first king.

I hope you find that helpful.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue doesn't really have to do with how to cite, Yaris, but what to cite. The passages from this book are notably different (context, description, etc.) that i feel it is important to cite the source of the translation. The web method you used - though effective - doesn't afford that opportunity (the web reference's source was the NIV Bible). There are many different versions of the Bible out there, and all of them are variants of the"original" Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew. As Daniel was originally written by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, or "The Men of the Great Assembly", it would seem especially prudent - given the variance in current wording, translation and interpretation - to simply list the specific bible used for the source, be it the NIV, KJV or any one of the at least half-dozen other versions.

Listing the version - again, this is my interpretation of our need to make this article more encyclopedic - is as important as avoiding the usage of the phrase "scholars have noted" or similar phrase without referencing the actual scholar. As many biblical books are interpretive in nature, the use of references become paramount, so as to avoid Jesus Freakery from occurring. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

May I meekly repeat my request for a single example of one verse of Daniel 8 and two translations that significantly differ? That's all it would take to make your point. Conversely, if there is no such example, then there is no need to cite a particular translation. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict - written before reading IP's response) I'd be OK with that. It is certainly a service to the reader to be able to jump directly to the verse in question to have a look at the original. With biblegateway.com you are forced to choose a particular translation. I am against specifying, say, KJV in the citation because it might leave the impression that there are significant differences between the translations, but that is not part of your proposal. An alternative would be to use bible.cc, which lists several translations in parallel. I think that might be the most elegant solution. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the Bible.cc idea. Also, I think its important to note the difference between translation and interpretation of the vision. Translation is the process of converting the text from the original language (Hebrew, Greek, etc.) to some modern language. Interpretation of the vision is learning the meaning of the symbolic language of the vision. There are two way that people approach the meaning of the symbols. 1. They make educated (or uneducated) guesses. This is AKA "private interpretation." 2. they follow the protestant dictum: "The Bible and the Bible only." Meaning the meaning of the symbols is found in the Bible only. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of Bible.cc makes sense. In biblegateway you can see many different translations, but only one is shown at a time.

If someone provides a Bible.cc citation for each bit then it should be easy to go through each and see if any of them differs substantially. If there are minor differences that could nonetheless be seen as significant, then these can be dealt with in footnotes like this. Yaris678 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I made this change, since it seems a clear improvement, if not the final answer. If we are really convinced this is the way to go, then the other Bible references here - and throughout Wikipedia! - should be changed from biblegateway.com to bible.cc. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Using bible.cc will make sense in most cases. However, I don't think we should go for a blanket changing from one to the other. There will be cases where the statements presented are not supported by all the translations. Firstly, I think someone, e.g. 207.181.235.214, should check the current citations to bible.cc and see whether any statements are not supported by all translations. If this is the case then there is a number of options:

1. Change the statement so that it is supported by all translations.
2. Explain any discrepancies in a footnote. Preferable for small things, such as the example I gave before.
3. Explain any discrepancies in the main text. Preferable for larger things.
4. Cite the specific version used. e.g. through biblegateway

This last option is not great cos it could lead to accusations of cherrypicking.

Once this has been done for the section we are talking about, the process could be repeated elsewhere, one section at a time. Yaris678 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of article

It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to first report what the text actually says and then discuss the assorted positions taken about the text and what it means to various groups. There should a place for criticism of the text and a place for those who choose to believe. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "a place for those who choose to believe", but the rest sounds right. In that context I don't understand the current "bible primary" templates that say,

This article uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.

The way the article is currently structured, the content is presented first, based, naturally, on the primary source, and the interpretations of the content - the proper place for secondary sources, of which we admittedly need more - come in the following sections. Could we at least move the templates out of the contents sections so it refers to the article as a whole? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree... Let me add.... After the content ought to come (similar as it does now) a section on the general scholarly position which holds that the "prophecy" is nothing more than history put in to pseudo-prophetic language. Then ought to come positions held by believers in the Bible. There are two schools of thought there: Dispensationalist and historicist.

Much of the existing scholarly section as it exist was written by a someone obnoxious editor who wrote the section without any references. Feel free to edit and find sources for it. There really hasn't been much added for the Dispensationalist position, however, from what I understand there are some close similarities to the scholarly position. To conform to NPOV the article should simply explain what these positions are without comment on what may or may not be better. --8teenfourT4 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the templates don't make much sense and the real issue is lack of secondary sources for the article as a whole (there are some, but more would be good). I have put a question on Template talk:Religious text primary, to see if I have missed anything. Yaris678 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tiberius

The article talks about the 70 day prophecy as relating to the 15th year of the reign of the emperor Tiberius, which is stated therefore to be 27 AD. Tiberius became emperor in 14 AD, which fact is very clearly documented in multiple contemporary sources and not, I believe, challenged by either historians or achaeologists. According to convention his 15th year, therefore, could be seen as either 28 AD or 29 AD, but not 27 AD. How is this explained? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Tiberius says this: "Thus, when in AD 13, the powers held by Tiberius were made equal, rather than second, to Augustus's own powers, he was for all intents and purposes a "co-princeps" with Augustus, and in the event of the latter's passing, would simply continue to rule without an interregnum or possible upheaval.[31] Augustus died in AD 14, at the age of 75."

It is true that Augustus died in 14 AD however he had already made Tiberius equal ruler with him in AD 13, so Tiberius' reign began in AD 13. He had all the same power before Augustus died as he had after Augustus died. Augustus was dying when he made Tiberius co-ruler so that the passage of power would not be questioned upon his death. AscensionRock (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we should not simply say "the reign of Tiberius began in 27 AD", since "reign" is ambiguous. We could say something like, "John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. The Adventist chronology interprets the reign of Tiberius as starting in 27 AD, when he began sharing power with Augustus (rather than in 28 AD, when Augustus died)." I see a problem at the other end, too. Artaxerxes I of Persia came to power in 464 BC. I don't know on what date. "The Jewish year has four distinct starting points," so we can not simply state as a fact that "Artaxerxes' 7th year began in 457 BC as counted by the Jewish civil calendar." --Art Carlson (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this whole section seems out of place. The seventy weeks is not mentioned at all in Daniel 8, only in Daniel 9, whereas the 2300 days occur in Daniel 8, not Daniel 9. I'm not saying it is unreasonable for the Adventists or anyone else to consider the prophecies in relation to each other, but it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to do it in an article on only one of the chapters. It could be discussed in Book of Daniel, or in some article on Adventist eschatology, but a good home would also be Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, which includes this section verbatim already. I propose to reduce this section to a summary and a cross reference to Prophecy of Seventy Weeks#Seventh-day Adventist interpretation. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Art, I think you meant to say AD 13 and 14 rather than AD 27 and 28 in your paragraph above. As for why this is in this article, in SDA eschatology the beginning of the 70 weeks is also to beginning of the 2300 days, so showing the beginning (and ending of the 70 weeks) also shows the beginning of the 2300 days. I agree it could be trimmed down.

As for the reign of Artaxerxes: Xerxes died in Dec, 465 BC, Artaxerxes began his accession year at that time, according to the way they counted reigns. His first year began with the beginning of their calender new year. For the Persians that began in about March, for the Jews that began in about Sept. This is stuff that Thiele worked out ages ago. Look at the illustration to see this. Thus Artaxerxies reign began in 465, but the counting of his first year began in 464.

I read the article on the Hebrew Calendar. When it comes to the purpose of counting kings reigns the only two considered are in the Spring and the Fall. The others are for other specific topics, which the article makes clear. There is no need to muddy the water, when a reference to the Hebrew Calendar article is all that is needed. AscensionRock (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If we can agree that the main exposition of this topic should be in Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks#Seventh-day_Adventist_interpretation, I would like to move the discussion over there. I have made a radical reduction of this section. It wouldn't surprise me if you think it is too much, too fast. No hard feelings if you revert, pending more discussion and a consensus, but I rather like my solution. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1150 days?

"2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days"

Doesn't 2300 mornings and evenings mean 2300 days? What is the reasoning that the "and" doesn't imply 2300 mornings and 2300 evenings? = 2300 days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.153.197 (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the justified question of why to interpret 2300 mornings and evenings as 1150 of each instead of 2300 of each, or, in the context of Wikipedia, the question of who interprets the phrase this way, the sentence doesn't make sense at this point in the article. The paragraph is giving reasons that the "strong scholarly consensus ... holds that the 'little horn' refers to Antiochus Epiphanes", but the 1150 days from the start of the persecutions to the reconsecration of the temple cannot be one of these reasons, since that consensus holds that the book was written before the persecutions ended (and does not contain any true prophecies). For all these reasons, I have removed the sentence. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

horns vs. winds

In the current version, the line

As Daniel put it, the little horn would come from 'one of them', usually understood as referring to one of the four horns that replaced the 'notable horn', though some maintain it refers to the four winds.

is followed by a footnote reading

These latter showing a problem in understanding the Hebrew, when they try to shift the masculine pronoun "them" from the four (horns) to the four winds because the latter is sometimes masculine. Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p.302 say "The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent". The relevant verbs, עלה and יצא do not help shift the reference of the pronoun in 8:9 onto the four winds.

This doesn't make much sense. Apparently the pronoun is masculine, but if "[t]he masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent", or if "winds" is usually feminine but sometimes masculine, then there is no way to decide the question on the basis of grammatical gender. (Am I correct that "horns" is always masculine?) And what is the thing with the verbs? Has someone suggested an argument that use the verbs, and who says the argument is not valid? If this argument cannot be stated more clearly - substantiated with reliable sources - I would suggest removing the footnote. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2300 day prophecy: Written in the earth

The 2300 day prophecy begins exactly where the vision of Daniel 8 begins: The battle at the river Granicus, where Alexander the Great defeats Darius III in 334 BC. This battle happened after Passover, in May of 334. Counting forward from the first Passover in 333 BC you come to the 2300th Passover in April of 1967. Two months later Israel captures Jerusalem in the Six day War.

There are exactly 2300 Passovers between the defeat of Darius III in 334 BC, and the 6 Day War in 1967.

April 21 Greece is taken over by a military dictatorship led by George Papadopoulos; ex-Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou political prisoner to December 25.

And God wrote it in the earth

Behold the bear, ram, and goat of the book of Daniel - MichaelTheArch

problem with Second Vision section

The first three subsections are summaries of the biblical text, however the subsection the little horn is an interpretation of the text. This subsection needs to be moved down to the interpretations section below as a scholarly interpretation or some such title. A summary of the text (like the others) needs to be put in its place. Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

lol...okay, done.Jasonasosa (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to Daniel 8

Telpardec, I see you abject to my large revisions to the article. Here's a bit of explanation:

• Daniel 8 does not identify the angel as Gabriel. It does: in verse 16 a man's voice calls, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision." So the interpretation that follows is from Gabriel. Prior to that, of course, in verses 13-14, Daniel listens as two angels discuss how long it will take for the vision to be fulfilled - those two are not identified.

• This paragraph is sourced to Ellen Gould White, but White is not a reliable source and it can't stand in the article:

In Revelation chapter 13 (verses 1-10) is described another beast, "like unto a leopard," to which the dragon gave "his power, and his seat, and great authority." This symbol, as most Protestants have believed, represents the papacy, which succeeded to the power and seat and authority once held by the ancient Roman empire. Of the leopardlike beast it is declared: "There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. . . . And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." According to Ellen G. White, this prophecy, which is nearly identical with the description of the little horn of Daniel 7, unquestionably points to the papacy.Reference: (The Great Controversy p439)

• The article contains qualifiers that turn majority opinions, even consensus, into tentative ones, such as this: "In the vision, the he-goat's first horn is broken, giving rise to four horns in its place. The "little horn" is sometimes understood to be one of the four horns that replaced the notable horn, who is accepted as Antiochus IV Epiphanes by historical-critical scholars. This is "sometimes," it's always, and "historical-critical scholars" are simply scholars using the historical critical method, i.e., scholars.

• Statements like this are not reliably sourced: Daniel 11:36 introduces a King who “shall do according to his will”. He is neither the “King of the North”, nor the “King of the South” since he wages war against both of them. REF:Daniel 11:40 “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him... ”END REF Many historicists identify this King as the “little horn.”REF Moses Lowman “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Revelation of St. John” (1807) Page 159END REF. A source from 1807????? And someone who identifies as a "historicist"? Historicists are simply a variety of millenialists, believers in the coming end of the world, which is a religious position, not a scholarly one. We have to use modern and reliable sources, which means avoiding books from 1807 and books by people who believe in prophecy.

Anyway, I'll go through the article and do the edits one by one, to give you a chance to raise objections should you wish. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Angels or Israelites?

The "Interpretation" section somewhat dogmatically states that 'Daniel 8:13's "holy ones of the Most High" clearly means angels, although sometimes in the Hebrew Bible it seems to refer to the Israelites.' My understanding is that most theologians interpret these stars as Israelites. Antiochus Epiphanes certainly did kill many Israelites, but it's less certain that angels were "cast down to the ground and trampled upon." I don't know what the correct interpretation is, but the article should acknowledge that the interpretation is disputed. Sadiemonster (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185041/http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=649&journal=1&type=pdf to http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=649&journal=1&type=pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel 8. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070531225517/http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp to http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Lots of confusion here

The King of Greece who conquers Persia is Alexander, yet the article allows only a small section for this viewpoint. There is only ONE Greek King that conquered Persia.

Various parts of Daniel give more details.

The obvious first - He is Greek. Also very very obvious - He conquers Persia. His horn will be broken off - meaning he will not die of old age. His kingdom will be split into 4 parts and not go to his descendants - I hope no explanation is needed.

The only Greek king to conquer Persia was Alexander. He did in fact die young and his kingdom was split into 4 parts, split among his generals and not his descendants.

Also lots of stuff mixed in from other prophecies. The "little horn" can be anyone up to and including Mohammad, reflecting the Muslim conquests from the south (Arabia) towards first Egypt and the area around Jerusalem before going north into modern day Syria and Turkey. The Book of Revelations also lists the little horn as a future event, so per the New Testament it does not refer to Antiochus.

The 2,300 day period refers to a time when the temple area will be unclean. In Daniel a day refers to a year, so this is actually a period of 2,300 YEARS. The period would start from the time the temple area was first desecrated (by Antiochus around 168 BC but possibly by other Greek kings even earlier) to the time it is cleaned. With the Dome on the Rock still on the temple mount, that area is still considered unclean by Jews.71.174.128.111 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"The 2,300 evenings and mornings" section

The first paragraph we have:

...Daniel is informed that it will be 'for 2,300 evenings and mornings,' or 1,150 days. This is contradicted [later with]... '...there shall be 1,290 days; happy are those that persevere and attain the 1,335 days'. The different numbers, first 1,150 days, then 1,290, finally 1,335, are presumably revisions made when the earlier numbers passed without fulfillment.

All this is ref'd to the bool [Collins, John J. (2013). "Daniel". In Lieb, Michael; Mason, Emma; Roberts, Jonathan (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-164918-9.] and the actual Bible, which is fine. John J. Collins is a notable and distinguished biblical scholar with many erudite books to his credit. Nevertheless, I edited the paragraph thus (emphasis added):

...Daniel is informed that it will be 'for 2,300 evenings and mornings,' or 1,150 days. This is contradicted [later with]... '...there shall be 1,290 days; happy are those that persevere and attain the 1,335 days'. The different numbers, first 1,150 days, then 1,290, finally 1,335, are (according to Collins) presumably revisions made when the earlier numbers passed without fulfillment.

with an edit summary of

I mean, Collins is the only source given here. It's just him. If it's a general consensus thing, then say and ref that. Sure Collins is an expert, but I am reluctant to cite a single expert for us to say things in our voice. Experts are human, may have an agenda (to push their particular theories), and so forth. It would be argument from authority for us to take this one guy at face value.

and this was reverted by an editor, User:Achar Sva, which of course is correct per WP:BRD, with an edit summary of "Collins is RS, you can't just delete because you disagree".

I don't disagree. I have no opinion one way or the other and no makes no difference to me why the Bible has those numbers or why it stops after three, and actually I suppose Collins is probably correct. The question is, are we confident enough of this to say it in our own voice? Anyway, also per WP:BRD, I've come to the discussion page to see if anyone else has a useful opinion about this. It's not a major point, but still.

My argument for adding "(according to Collins)" is basically in my edit summary. I can't read the source, so I don't know if Collin's source for this is "c'mon, this is just stone obvious" or "in a lifetime of study, I have found several instances of the ancient writers doing just this with dates for this reason" or whatever.

If its the second, fine I suppose. If it's the first, "he's probably right" is not enough for us to repeat it in our own voice and doing so would basically based on argument from authority. It it's in between or he doesn't say, well... academic history is complicated... "Book-writing PhD? RS!", is not necessarily as baked-in for all data as one might think, in my experience.

If the ref was Collins, Smith, and Jones all saying this (and no opposing voices found), that'd be different.

I'm not deleting anything. I'm just saying let the reader know that it is Collins making this claim not us. The downside adding "(according to Collins)" doesn't detract from he reader's experiences, beyond adding three more words to process, which isn't much. So I am advocating for accepting the change. Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my inaccurate edit summary. Nevertheless, I stand by the reversion; we can't add "according to X" to every statement in Wikipedia. If you have doubts about the statement, the correct thging to do is to find other scholars who say something different, and make an addition along the lines "some scholars say this, others say that". And if you can find a scholar who tells us what the consensus is, all the better. Achar Sva (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)