Talk:Wormwood (Bible)

old
your bot is accusing me of vanalisim and i do not think that is fair when i figure this thing out i will bring a complaint about your so called auto matic bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44raven (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the worst article I have ever read in the Wikipedia.

MyNameIsFarang 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This "article" is a joke. TheLightOfTruth 12:10, 28 October 2005

Hello. I have re-created this page, and it is much improved over its last incarnation. If you two are still around, perhaps you could suggest some further improvements for its content. ◄   Zahakiel    ►   02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed some dubious claims treated as fact regarding "endtimes" and "Science's discovery of a Brown Dwarf called Niburu orbiting our sun". Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.21.99 (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Connection between Wormwood and Chernobyl
I've heard some people talk about Wormwood being a reference to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, because Chernobyl is actually Russian for "Wormwood" (with the whole "1/3rd of the Earth's water becoming Wormwood" being the radiation cloud spreading across the globe). I can't come up with any specific sources off the top of my head, though. Has anyone else heard of this? Joylock 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard this too and it seems to be connected to the idea of corrupting Earth's resources. I believe "Wormwood" is also a codeword for Nuclear Containment Leakage, or Radioactive Poisoning. Mimeblade 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a New York Times article from 1986 that makes the connection between the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and Wormwood of Revelations. 70.144.92.198 03:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl seems to sum it all up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.252.39 (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot--

The liklyhood is very high. Rather large version numbers of people die from man made radiation.

It is also possibly blue that an asteroid could contain a high consentration of radioactive material. But if chernoble means wormwood then we would all think long and hard.

~

Origin of 'wormwood'
One basic starting point might be to explain why the original Greek apsinthion has been translated into English as 'Wormwood'.Bunnyman78 (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done!  this name is also in use  16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Literature
I notice that the References in Literature section has now been completely removed. I disagree with this, but would rather discuss it here.

The edit summaries given stated 'rm trivial/OR similarity/no avowed connection'. I feel this is in bad judgement. While some references may fit this criteria, some of those removed - such as the CS Lewis reference - were clearly references to the character in Revelation and should remain included.

Similarly, the Armageddon: The Musical reference is appropriate as the books are specifically an interpretation of end times lore, among other things, and as such can be interpreted in light of the book of Revelation. I'm not sure if Rankin has ever gone on record for this, in part because it's so obvious, but I'll have a look. --Black Butterfly 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to a large degree on this. Unfortunately an editor (who is also an admin.) appears to be on a recent crusade to remove everything he believes is trivial, and there is some indication that the consensus of the other editors is not as important as the opinion he happens to hold.  We'll just have to see what comes of it.  You can re-add the info. if you wish; I already did so once, but it might just get removed again.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are more important than the opinions of any user. --Eyrian 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, an essay is not wikipedia policy. Consensus is.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A predictable response. WP:NOT is policy. My essay just explains how those policies apply. --Eyrian 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate to get into this with you here, it is pretty indicative that you believe your essay is necessary to explain the ins-and-outs of WP:NOT to the rest of us poor peons. We're perfectly able to read, we simply disagree with the narrow interpretation you've put on some of the rules there.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People make what I believe to be flawed interpretations all the time. Sometimes quite flagrantly. If you understand, then the essay isn't really for you. That still doesn't change the fact that insignificant details simply don't belong in articles. --Eyrian 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some had no similarities, others were merely trivial. Cultural references cannot be inconsequential. That is to say, they must have an effect on the general perception of the thing they are referencing. Just using a name (almost) never does that. Other works generally just don't have an impact. Their importance must be proven using an independent source, as a work cannot be used to justify its own importance. --Eyrian 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, writing is generally a process of making allusions. Similarities to mythology and cultural commons are omnipresent. Mentioning the origin of these names is absolutely appropriate, but usually only in the work that does the referencing, not the other way around, unless the work has had an impact on the general perception. And that impact, of course, needs to be proven in accordance with Wikipedia policies about attributability. --Eyrian 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got that backwards. You need to attribute the impact of popular culture references on the perception of the concept if the article is "The perception of X in popular culture."  What we have here, and in many other articles that have fallen under your critical eye of late, is a set of examples that show the impact of the concept on works in the culture.  That's precisely what this article is doing.  I realize that you hold to an (oft stated) position that this is not important (to you), but really... with the courses your past few AfDs have taken, and the resistance you are getting with your consensus-defying edits to long-standing articles, one would think you'd try to work within the community rather than pushing your assertions like, "This needs to dramatically affect the wholesale view of the concept to be important."  That's not policy; there is no policy outlawing examples if this type, that's opinion, even with your recent "tweaks" to the policy and guideline pages you then turn around and cite.  The WP:TRIVIA guideline is a nice shield, but that was created to prevent long and unmanagable lists of banal details about a particular topic.  Even when applied to articles it recommends deletion as only one of a variety of options, and emphasizes that Wikipedia policies (including the cooperative element) are not to be ignored. What you are doing with it is a sure path to alienating a whole lot of editors, as you're finding out even now.  Maybe you don't care about that much, but it's certainly going to make site building a challenge.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's become very clear from the start that removing these lists would alienate a number of people. It's because lots of people love these lists. After all, they're one of the most interactive parts of Wikipedia. Anyone can add to a pop-culture list. You don't need to do research, as almost anybody can probably think of something new. You don't need to understand writing structure, as they're just bulleted entries in a long list, and can be added with only the most basic elements of grammar and style. You don't even need to read the article, as often just a mention of the name is enough. Of course they're popular; these lists have "common" written all over them. They do not, however, have "encyclopedic".
 * And yes, a cultural reference needs to show significance. Are Wikipedia articles really about insignificant details? Should an article mention something that is insignificant to it? Once that's been established, we can recognize that, since Wikipedia articles are written for a general audience, such references should require general significance. Not global significance, but they need to be demonstrate something substantial. And the way that we demonstrate things in Wikipedia is with independent sources. As I've always maintained, there is nothing really new in policy about any of this. --Eyrian 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My point, sir, is that words like "substantial" and "significant" are hugely POV terms. You cannot always demonstrate it by having some expert say "Yes, this is significant."  This is why common sense is built in to the system, and this is why your ignoring of that, and consensus in many cases, leads to alienation; it is not because of your nobility or self-assessed advanced understanding of the guidelines and policies of this encyclopedia, but because of your rigidity.  That has never been a useful way to go about building this site, and it's receiving its expected reaction - it is simply indefensible.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need an expert to specifically say that it's significant, just someone to comment on it. That demonstrates significance. Citing sources, and insisting on their presence, has always been the best way to go about building the site. --Eyrian 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For information about the subject, yes. For the appearance of that subject in other works, no.  Primary sources (the work itself) has generally been the acceptable threshold.  There has never been consensus about the need for anything further.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, why do we not include every single reference ever? --Eyrian 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on now, you should not resort to slippery-slope arguments to prove a point. Arguments like, "This will lead to problems later on" have been routinely rejected in AfDs and RfCs.  I have no objection to removing mere "glancing" mentions of a concept in a work of literature or fiction, but in the cases where there is a major plot point or at least key feature, I believe (and this is supported by the overwhelming precedent for Wikipedia) this is worth mentioning.  I'm not saying there won't be problems, POV and otherwise; I am not saying there won't be disputes, that's fine... but making a gated community isn't the way to go about resolving it.  I actually agree with some of the revisions and retractions you've made at times, but you're going to have a much easier time if you try to discuss these changes before acting unilaterally.  You think you have policy on your side, but people seem to be reading them a lot more flexibly than you do, and I don't accept that the others are all "misguided" because of that disagreement.  Nobody likes cricisism, I'm sure you included... there's an easier way to improve the encyclopedia than the hard-line process you've undertaken.  I hope you take this to heart.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The comet Lulin?
It's green like Absinthe.

Connection between Wormwood and British Petroleum
I deleted the parenthetical commentary about edit wars, because it really ought to be put in the Discussion section, not in the article itself. 76.181.145.142 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Church of Ouzo
The Church of Ouzo is named after the star called Wormwood, as ouzo is a substitute for absinthe, without the wormwood. See. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.9.34 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cyanide from comets
The only poison I know of that is both bitter AND extremely toxic is the notorious hydrogen cyanide, responsible for both the bitterness of bitter almonds AND the toxicity of Nazi gas chambers. So, the discovery of cyanide in Comet ISON should be the smoking gun... Should a comet containing high levels of cyanide merely air-burst high up, it would contaminate the clouds with cyanide, causing aqueous hydrocyanic acid to fall as rain and contaminate the water cycle. 166.137.210.40 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If a comet large enough to have enough cyanide to cause significant toxicity did an air burst... the cyanide would be the least of our problems.


 * Also, there are many bitter and extremely toxic compunds, such as many alkaloids. BunsenH (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's IF the comet does an air burst over land. Over a large ocean, however, all it would do is evaporate (and, thus, desalinate) large amounts of seawater, dissolve the cyanide into the resulting water vapor, and, thus, create a toxic storm cloud... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.53.156.131 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In such an event, the shock wave would be more destructive than the toxicity. BunsenH (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wormwood (Bible). 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/20070504110830/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.xxvii.ix.html to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc6.xxvii.ix.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061030170507/http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=re&chapter=008&verse=010&next=011&prev=009 to http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=re&chapter=008&verse=010&next=011&prev=009
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203125704/http://www.ccel.org/j/johnson_bw/pnt/PNT27-08.HTM to http://www.ccel.org/j/johnson_bw/pnt/PNT27-08.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230941/http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=re&chapter=008 to http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=re&chapter=008

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A bitterly (!) crude remark
Seriously? There aren't any third-party sources that draw a line connecting a highly fantastical nature of the Bible with hallucinogenic properties of wormwood? Some scholars are real wusses. :V 83.9.113.28 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are. Some examples:


 * https://doubleblindmag.com/were-there-psychoactive-plants-in-the-bible/
 * https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2054/3/2/article-p117.xml
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-moses-idUSN0444950920080304/
 * https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13002-019-0338-8

Just some examples. Because I am too lazy and I already took my sleep medication, I hope someone kindly picks up on this lead and adds this by no means not irrelevant information to the article that would actually do justice to logic and critical thinking instead of coming up with more semantics and rhetoric which sounds highly apologetic in nature. 83.9.113.28 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)