Talk:Millennialism
|
|
There's a lot of good information in this article, but it's loaded with opinion as well. I've restructured it, retaining all of the original material, with the intention of presenting the definition of Millennialism preceding instead of following the comparative religion analysis. ...
... And, in my opinion, all of the comparative stuff should be the start of a new page on Utopianism (with a good teaser to invite interest - because, it really is good stuff; it just doesn't have much directly to do with Millennialism, per se). -- Mkmcconn
Yes, I've noticed this tendency in Wikipedia to create more and more new pages whenever I think a comprehensive survey might do the trick. So maybe you, Mkmcconn, or someone else will create that new article. I'm not so sure about the text being "loaded with opinion" -- I really tried to observe the NPOV guidelines. Anyway, thanks for the "good stuff" bit. -- KF 15:06 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
- I do apologize for not being more courteous in making my comments. The article already exists, now, at Utopianism. If you read it there, I think that you might agree with me that it's complete in its own right. I left the same material in the Millennialism article, and I wonder if you won't agree with me that it is more neutral now that it's put at the end instead of at the beginning? But, you may not agree with me that the material at the end could be deleted, and replaced with a more brief summary and link to Utopianism. — Mkmcconn
- There's really no need to apologize for anything. You have added valuable information -- but you seem to be much more of sn expert. All I'm saying is that if I had thought that the material I added belonged to separate articles I would have split it up. Basically, I think there's nothing wrong with different types of articles within one enyclopedia (in one of the old Britannica editions they called it "Macro" and "Micro" or something like that, i e general versus in-depth information). So please delete the parts you have moved. Personally, I like reading texts that lead you from one thing to another step by step.
- All the best :) KF 16:10 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
- Hopefully the two articles can grow in a complementary way. A passer-by added titles which, although they don't perfectly fit the contents at the moment, do suggest a good structure for the article (in my opinion). It would be interesting to see more about the Millennial teachings of Zoroastrianism and Judaism. I hope you won't let me force an idea onto the work that you have done in a way that cools your interest in the work, though. It's much less gratifying if that happens when it isn't necessary. -- Mkmcconn
Annus or anus?
On 2 February 2004 an anonymous contributor edited the Millennialism article (which had not been edited for more than a year) and changed it considerably. I would ask anyone knowledgeable about the subject to check if the alterations are okay. What I certainly don't like is confusing terminology, which was also introduced today. In any case we should make sure it's millennium and millennia. <KF> 09:43, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What has Hiler has to do with this page? Pure nonsense. Not every graziness has to be called eschatology.
- What is relevant here is not Hitler as a person, it's the fact that millennial thinking did play a (minor) role in Nazi ideology. As the original article was much longer, less emphasis was seemingly placed on the Third Reich. Why do you say "pure nonsense", User:80.133.106.218? <KF> 14:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please weave in the Fifth Monarchy Men into this article? Philip Baird Shearer 13:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This information is very knowledgeable, but how can we believe what we read if the information is able to be edited by anyone who visits the site?
Premillennialism
Since the major views on the Millennium of Revelation 20 are Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism, I'm wondering why only the latter two have their own article, while the former redirects to here.--PeterR 20:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Short answer...no one has written it yet. :-) --Cberlet 22:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)