Talk:Babylonian captivity of Judah

Why was this material moved from Babylonian captivity? That is the more familiar name for this subject. I find no discussion either here or at that other article why this change was made. -- llywrch 04:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The page on Babylonian captivity confuses the topics between the Christian Papal "Babylonian captivity" and the Jewish Biblical one. The page on the Babylonian captivity is now basically a disambiguation page, why is that a problem? IZAK 08:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "Babylonian captivity" of the Papcy is nothing more than an illustration of how the story has been introduced as a concept -- or metaphor -- into Western Civilization. I feel you are being too cautious in your disambiguation: in my experience, no one who uses or encounters the phrase "Babylonian captivity" metaphorically is confused by its use in (as you put it) the Christian or Jewish Biblical examples. -- llywrch 05:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you are saying. I have refined the opening sentence by emphasizing the words Babylonian captivity ONLY in the introduction as a way of making it specific. Many times on Wikipedia a name of a subject will be introduced as "so and so of so and so" even though it may not be the absolutely most commonly used name most of the time. In addition it also helps to differentiate from the "Babylonian captivity of the papacy", a major well-known chapter in Catholic history, which is refered to as such on the Babylonian captivity page itself which cites at least three major usages of the term, so having this one here on the Babylonian captivity (of Judah), should actually be helpful in the long run. IZAK 08:01, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point, IZAK. In Babylonian captivity, only 3 lines refer to the Papal "Babylonian captivity" (& directs the reader to Avignon Papacy), & 5 more lines refer to its use to describe forced labor during the Second World War; it's not as if we have 3 lengthy articles in this namespace vying for priority. Surely, there is enough room in one article to acknowledge other usages of this term? -- llywrch 00:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)