text:
Talk:Admiralty (United Kingdom)

OtherUses template
Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs).

 * Note that that functionality is now at otheruses1. OtherUses redirects to otheruses, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

British Admiralty
British Admiralty links here--but is not explained at all. Could you please add that? I'm looking for "British Admiralty" as of the early 19th century--what exactly does that refer to? Thanks, Ibn Battuta 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The subject of this article is the British Admiralty. That is Admiralty = British Admiralty. So, if you are looking for info on the British Admiralty, you'll find it here (although admittedly, there is not much on the 19th century). The other meanings of Admiralty (ex. Russion, Dutch, etc.) can be found on the disambiguation page.--SteveMtl 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Blackborne
I'm wondering if anyone has any specifics on Robert Blackborne, a friend of Samuel Pepys who served as secretary of the Admiralty under the Protectorate in the 1650's and later as secretary of the old East India Company? Many thanks in advance!MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

D.N.1 or D.N.I
Looking through my grandfathers WWII service record I see that he was based in the Admiralty with D.N.1 or D.N.I. I can't find any information about this section - does anyone know what it is ? Thanks 80.189.16.70 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Try Naval Intelligence Division. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Board
The ACNS was not a member of the Board.Seadowns (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes he was see just one official source here from Hansard on 9 February 1942 in UK Houses of Parliament/House of Commons debate announcing the composition of the Board of Admiralty see further down That the Members of the Board shall be, Four Assistant Chiefs of Naval Staff http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1942/feb/17/board-of-admiralty. --Navops47 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've learnt something! There was not just one ACNS on the Board in 1942, but four. However, I don't think that can have lasted very long. In its concluding, peacetime years, the ACNS was not a member, nor was the merchant shipping chief. Seadowns (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus for this move to demote British admiralty from primary topic; a further move clarifying the eventual location of the British admiralty may be filed if desired. (t · c)  buidhe  05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

– If there is a primary topic for the word Admiralty, it's probably admiralty law, or possibly the rank of admiral. I can say with high confidence that the primary topic is not a single country's government department that has not existed for over 50 years - especially considering how many other countries have a department called admiralty. In my view, the word admiralty has no primary topic and should be a disambiguation page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Admiralty → British Admiralty
 * Admiralty (disambiguation) → Admiralty
 * Support. It is British, not international.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. I would support the move, but would recommend Office of the Admiralty and Marine Affairs as the target.  This was the official title of the organization, and emphasises the fact that the article is about one particular incarnation of the government department responsible for the Navy, rather than its entire history from Ethelred the Unready to the present day, which "British Admiralty" might imply. Tevildo (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Name

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Although this discussion hasn't been formally opened as a RM, it has all hallmarks of one, so I'll give it a formal close. After a month of discussion, I find that there is consensus to move the article to Admiralty (United Kingdom). There is no consensus whether it is the primary topic for "Admiralty", so it may be open to further debate; currently, Admiralty is a dab page and all links are sorted out, so nothing is technically broken. At minimum, I will move this article's entry to the top of the dab page. No such user (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not see the move discussion until my watchlist was filled this morning with edits changing the link. I do not think the name "British Admiralty" is appropriate. We normally disambiguate "Common name (disambiguator)" rather than "Disambiguator common name". I think it unfortunate that the discussion was closed after so few responses, perhaps to be expected given the time of year. DuncanHill (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Definitely incorrect article naming, and I suspect it will turn out that this Admiralty is primary topic on EN wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Endorse concerns. Relevant projects and more input should have obtained before move Lyndaship (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur; I see no evidence was presented to support whether this article is the primary topic or not, only vague, unsubstantiated assertions. Has anyone looked even at rudimentary stats like google hits? Until we actually look at data, we ought to revert the page move. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The only argument that this 50-years defunct government department is primary topic for a common word, is a British superiority complex. However, if you have a different title in mind, the requested move closer did suggest a second request. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I regard that as being British as a personal attack and please considering withdrawing it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that the department was renamed 50 years ago that diminishes it's importance, but that it controlled the predominant navy in the world for 200 years that makes it significant. By my quick estimation there are over 4000 incoming links to this article, and less than 500 to Admiralty, and most of those are from non-article pages or look like they are about the British Admiralty. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Despite Oiyarbepsy's disparaging assertions, this organisation has been known as the Admiralty for several hundred years. Even today the term is understood to be that part of MOD relating to the Royal Navy.  It is completely unacceptable for the page to have been moved after such a cursory discussion, without advertising it on the relevant project pages and soliciting a wider participation.  The move needs to be reversed. - Nick Thorne talk  07:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse concerns: Concerns are failure to engage at project level for a controversial move, failure to observe impact analysis, failure to point to -point to previous discussion from DAB page which simply points to itself and failure clearly point to previous primary topic in the DAB. The move was not an unreasonable topic to raise but appropriate notifications do not appear to have been made, the fact the the move might be contentions was either not considered or deliberately ignored and and the move itself was technically not done with due diligence as far as I can tell.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, hold on a second - Don't we have bots that notify Wikiprojects of things like deletion and move discussions? I followed the process exactly as described at the requested moves page, so if there is an issue of key people not getting notified, there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with our processes here. When you have discussion forums with complex procedures, no one should be expected to notify Wikiprojects on top of all that, that's simply not reasonable. It's also not reasonable to expect people to somehow know what will be controversial ahead of time if there is no notes on either talk page. And if there was previous discussion about the primary topic I didn't see it - unless it was buried in the archives of what is now British Admiralty instead of at the disambiguation page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is no excuse. In what possible universe did you think this move would not be controversial?  Competence is required. - Nick Thorne talk  09:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, now you're just being a jerk. I figured it wouldn't be controversial under the idea that the article was probably created long long ago and only had that title because no one thought it would be ambiguous at the time. And now things have changed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm totally seeing the irony of being Competence-is-required by a guy who is incapable of paying attention to their watchlist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I don't spend all my time monitoring my watchlist, I have a life outside of Wikipedia. I maintain that anyone with the slightest knowledge of things naval would realise the move would be controversial  That you didn't see this says a lot about the superficial way the discussion was done before the move and your apparent lack of any in depth understanding of the subject. - Nick Thorne talk  01:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I always support real life stuff. And with a highly vulnerable relative getting a within-hospital Covid-19 transmission a few days ago I can think of plenty of reasons for not keeping an eye on the watchlist.  This actually wasn't on my watchlist, it was the change of broken links on multiple articles on my watchlist which brought it to my attention (and my first thought was I had been making a spelling mistake).  As proposer you have demonstrated a non neutral viewpoint to "British superiority complex" and did not indicate the an impact analysis on the move proposal.  You are now calling someone a "jerk".  Have you thanked  for onsiderable time cleaning up the results of this move?  Closer  please note and please check what links here impact analysis in future.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you link to WP:CIR, you are being a jerk, based on the inherent nature of that page. Period. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to lay off the personal attacks and prejudice. Either engage constructively or withdraw. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to WP:CIR is a personal attack because it's explicitly saying that the other person is not competent. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The descriptive term “British Admiralty” gets used.
 * 1. https://mdnautical.com/233-british-admiralty
 * 2. https://www.geographicus.com/P/ctgy&Category_Code=admiralty
 * 3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071841109434573
 * Not British sources? That goes to the point of the move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at these examples: 1. The term used is British Admiralty Charts, British is used in this context as an adjective to the compound noun "Admiralty Charts", so this example is irrelevant to this discussion. 2. British Admiralty Office is used as the heading and lead of the article, the term "Admiralty" is used without qualifier a further 8 times in the text including the line Prior to the founding of the Admiralty surveying and creation of nautical charts... 'nuff said. 3. This is a translation of a German journal, consequently it sheds no light on the subject of English usage of the term Admiralty. I haven't bothered to look for instances of use of the term Admiralty without the British qualifier as I am sure anyone with more than the most superficial familiarity with things naval will be well aware that the term is used in English almost exclusively to mean the Admiralty of the United Kingdom and that topic is way beyond any reasonable interpretation of being the primary topic for the name. - Nick Thorne talk 09:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. If, indeed this article should not be the primary topic (which I don't think has been proven), it should be at Admiralty (United Kingdom) or similar. As it is one of the primary topics this article should be clearly linked at the top of the disambiguation page, not as the 22nd link on it. Many of the incoming redirects need to be be changed from the disambiguation page to the British Admiralty page (or whatever it ends up as), including British admiralty, Old Admiralty, Ripley Building, Old Admiralty Building, United Kingdom Admiralty, Commissioners of the Admiralty, Department of Admiralty. I also think there is a good claim that The Admiralty should redirect here (with a hatnote back to the disambiguation page). The definitive article seems to rule out any reference to Admiralty law or the rank of admiral, which are claimed as the primary topics. I look forward to a broader discussion on this move - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Comment: I have been working on fixing the several-thousand incoming links to "Admiralty" over the past few days since the move was carried out. The vast majority of links have been intended for the entity described in this article, which is consistent with the topic having occupied the base page name, but there have been exceptions. About a dozen links were intended for Admiralty, Hong Kong, a handful were intended for each of Admiralty law and Admiralty court, one was intended for Admiralty, Singapore, and one was intended for Admiralty, Saint Petersburg. BD2412  T 17:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it turns out that this move is overturned and either reverted to the old title or changed to a different one, I will be glad to make the necessary link fixes. I would also note that there were instances where the text I have edited specifically said either " the British Admiralty " (for which I merely extended the link to include "British") or " British Admiralty ", for which I merely removed the piped portion. BD2412  T 17:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But you won't need to. Whatever happens, British Admiralty would become a redirect to the new title and all the links will still work fine. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. I have finished fixing incoming links. My first run only addressed capitalized used of Admiralty. There were a few dozen links to the lowercase usage, admiralty, which generally tended to refer to the area of law. BD2412  T 20:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Admiralty (United Kingdom) or the previous name, but not this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article could go to Admiralty (United Kingdom) in the interim, and if the consensus is that it is the primary topic then Admiralty could be a redirect to it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't redirect primary topic titles to disambiguated titles. Doing so would almost automatically result in the article being moved back to the undisambiguated titled. BD2412  T 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Support: Per Move to Admiralty (United Kingdom) as intermediate measure then if the consensus is that it is the primary topic then Admiralty could be a redirect to it.08:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - Despite Oiyarbepsy's "...high confidence that the primary topic is not a single country's government department that has not existed for over 50 years", both incoming links and pageviews suggest it might have been.--Ykraps (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly a party to the dispute, but might I suggest The Admiralty? BD2412  T 21:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s even more Britain-centric. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How so? I don't see any other topic on the page known as "The Admiralty" at all, and use of the definite article would definitely not be applicable to places like Admiralty, Hong Kong and Admiralty, Singapore, or concepts like Admiralty law and Admiralty court, which appear from the disambiguation effort to be the next most common uses. Compare The Pentagon. BD2412  T 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The German, Netherlands and Russian admiralties would have been named "the Admiralty" after first use. Eg: Albrecht von Stosch was head of the Admiralty from 1872 to 1883.  The other pentagons are not nearly as significant as the other admiralties. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous was ambiguous, and the correct is good enough Natural Disambiguation which beats parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:QUALIFIER.
 * https://www.shippingwondersoftheworld.com/british-admiralty.html
 * https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=The+British+admiralty&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true
 * —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Have you looked at use of ngram of use of British Admiralty versus Admiralty or The Admiralty versus British Admiralty? The drop off post 1950s matches with the change of name of the department. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Endorse. Admiralty (United Kingdom) would be correct, but this needed far wider discussion. It was New Year, you know. Should have been kept open much longer. It should have been blatantly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the subject that this was controversial and that one support vote and one neutral comment was not anywhere near enough for consensus. In my opinion, the "British Admiralty" is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like Necrothesp I too suspect the "British Admiralty" is the primary topic. Like several above I too endorse Admiralty (United Kingdom) as a preliminary move pending the outcome of a broader discussion. To the proposer I suggest a simple note on the relevant project (in this case MILHIST) talk page for future moves. Cavalryman (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Our systems are irreparably broken then, because even if I had known to post about on a Wikiproject, I would have posted on WP UK and not Military History. And I throw on these project banners as part of new page patrol all the time, so imagine what it's like for someone who doesn't know wikiprojects at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Choosing to notify one project and not another when both are listed at the top of this talkpage is personal editor choice not a system problem. I note though if you are on the mobile version you don't see the talkpage header - which is a bit of a problem. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oiyarbepsy, Do you not see the irony of objecting to my CIR comment and then you say this? - Nick Thorne <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 09:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Listed for Move Review. See Move_review/Log/2021_January. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse Admiralty (United Kingdom) Considering the number of other things and places with the name of Admiralty, it makes far more sense to me for that to be the disambiguation page. So this article would be better off at a UK specific title. Silver  seren C 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Accept Admiralty (United Kingdom) as in compliance with wikipedia naming practices Lyndaship (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose move. I think "British Admiralty" is a perfectly good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, which is generally preferred for titles over a parenthetical disambiguation. I also object to this informal move discussion. If this page is going to be moved again, it should be nominated at Requested moves. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From RM "The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus." We've had the discussion above, we could move it (and be damned) since there's no technical obstacle, sort the redirects and get to the PrimaryTopic discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I also object to this discussion. Some people are overstating the problem with "British Admiralty", and this discussion is an informal waste of time.  Do it properly.  For good or ill, Move review was opened, and is still open.  It needs to be closed before seriously continuing this discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread was opened on 7 Jan, the Move review on 27 Jan as a result of this discussion. It is mistaken (at best) to object to this thread on the grounds that another was opened afterwards. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread began as an informal discussion, which is fine. There needs to be a formal discussion to reverse or completely change the previous formal RM, even if poorly participated.  The MR is a very formal discussion, and it effectively prevents a formal RM being started.  As I said there, I think it was ill-advised, I think it should be closed now, and a fresh RM can be started immediately.  It can of course refer to this thread.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The current MR needs to be allowed to complete.  The original RM was improperly closed and it is important that the resultant fait accompli not be allowed to stand.  Reversing the previous move will demonstrate that this sort of action will not be tolerated and help prevent setting a precedent that could potentially be used by other less responsible editors to game the system. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  01:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no real diagreement then. The MR discussion should be closed, in whatever way, and then the RM discussion resume/restart.  My feelings on the propriety of the previous close are not strong.  Obviously, several people feel they wanted to contribute and missed out, and the discussion wasn't strong, so it should continue/restart/whatever, but as a matter of process, the MR discussion needs closing first.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 * Well, User:No such user, that was snappily done. While I don't share the vehemence of opposition to British Admiralty, the current Admiralty (United Kingdom) works fine, better than the ambiguous Admiralty.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 * So close the move review "as moot" because there's a discussion here, and then close the discussion here at the same time. When you say "as moot" do you mean "not worth discussing further" or do you mean "remains debatable"? DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Moot in American sense, i.e. "not worth discussing further". I forgot about that difference. No such user (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, just be happy that the drama is over and done with, sheesh. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bad article naming to include “United Kingdom”
This was a very bad name change, not least as the United Kingdom did not come into being until 1801. “British Admiralty” had the advantage of covering both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the later period. However, the Admiralty existed even before 1707, and I agree with and others that it is the primary topic of “Admiralty”. Moonraker (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Admiralty (United Kingdom)


text:
Talk:Angus, Scotland

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Angus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070611100003/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_125/125_029_067.pdf to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_125/125_029_067.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Angus. 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/20070611100003/http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_125/125_029_067.pdf to http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_125/125_029_067.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Angus to Angus, Scotland and Angus (disambiguation) to Angus. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

– There is no primary topic for this term, none of the entries on the dab could be thought of as having long term significance. Making a local area the primary topic also gives the impression of systematic bias towards a certain area. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Angus → Angus City Council
 * Angus (disambiguation) → Angus
 * Comment: Looking at Category:Council areas of Scotland, where this article is currently is in, the proposed title should be instead be the parenthetical disambiguation name Angus (council area) for title consistency with the other articles in that category. I'm otherwise neutral regarding the actual merits of primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that an article titled Angus, Scotland could not be in Category:Council areas of Scotland. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Angus isn't a city. Also the historical shires were only renamed "council areas" in 1996, this is still the county of Angus article - and the county of Angus is as old as any of the Category:Counties of Scotland (or indeed Category:Counties of England like Dorset or Norfolk), the cattle etc. are named after the county. Just as things are named after other ancient Scottish counties. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted below, what is named after what is not a valid argument concerning primary topic. So how about Angus, Scotland as a title? See . Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, Angus is Angus. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Strongest possible oppose Angus is not a city. And it is not a council. It has had historical precedent for the name dating back to the 8th century, and all other uses of the name ultimately derive from it. To rename it would be akin to renaming India because there are other uses of that name.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But I note that you are happy with Angus, Scotland as a title. correct? Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Angus (disambiguation) → Angus. I also support moving the current article at Angus somewhere, but I'm not sure if the proposed location is the best option. Long story short, I think there's strong evidence that at least in the United States, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word "Angus" is Angus cattle (even stronger than its historical use; for a similar reference, see Gouda), but since that's obviously not a world-wide view, the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title. Steel1943  (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A more appropriate example is Hereford and Hereford (cattle). Angus cattle is, in any case, not a valid name for the breed. The breed is known as Aberdeen Angus cattle everywhere other than the US and is differentiated to either Black Angus or Red Angus in the US.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statement applies exclusively to the cattle: the PRIMARYTOPIC claim refers to its beef. In the US, the beef is best known as just "angus". And since the beef comes from the cattle, differentiating the two is a very blurry line. Steel1943  (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that doesn't wash. You go anywhere in the world and say the word "Gouda" and it means a specific type of cheese. Ask anyone in Gouda where you can buy some Gouda and they will point you in the direction of a cheese shop. Go into a butchers in Angus and ask for some Angus and they look at you blankly or laugh at you. The word "Angus" by itself is an adjective when applied to beef. You say "Angus beef" not just "Angus". And in any case it's called "Aberdeen Angus beef" everywhere except the US. A similar situation exists for Kobe and Kobe beef.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  21:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI before I read more into this statement: The affinity for the word Kobe, in the US, isn't exclusive to Kobe beef; the word's affinity with Kobe Bryant is just as strong. Steel1943  (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And George Bush's cat was called India (cat)... so what? We disambiguate India?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...George Bush had a cat? Steel1943  (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * [[File:India_the_Cat_Miss_Beazley_and_Barney_Halloween_2007_(cropped).jpg]]
 * It really upset some people in India.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  10:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh! The cat doesn't look too pleased about it either! -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...As for the rest of your statement ... your statement, in one way, validates my argument regarding "Angus". If one is in Angus (the current subject at Angus), what you said could very well happen, but in the US, a salesperson of meat (or really any grocery or restaurant) would understand that their customer is inquiring about the beef from Angus cattle. Considering that a good portion of the readers of the English Wikipedia are in the US, the current setup of article titles has systemic bias which caters exclusively to non-US English speakers/readers. Steel1943  (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're exaggerating more than a little there. Anyway, even if the salesperson of meat would be able to figure out such a request, nobody goes into a shop in the US and just asks for some "Angus". They might ask for Gouda though.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the majority of the world's English readers live in India and Africa so its not systematic bias that what words mean to the majority of the worlds English readers is taken into account. But even in the US "Angus" is not used in US for cattle, other than for "Angus cattle" found in some US books. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Support Angus → Angus (council area). I'd be interested to see pageviews here. Dohn joe (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pageviews of what? Angus is the only highly notable subject called "Angus". Angus cattle are not called just "Angus" period. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Readers in the US, for the most part, don't know the difference. "Angus" refers to the beef, so being redirected the cattle would make sense for US readers. (But again, I know it's not a worldwide view, thus why I'm suggesting he disambiguation page move to the ambiguous title.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just not right on either count. To the pageviews, I suppose: 1) the |Angus,_Nebraska|Angus,_Texas|Angus_(given_name)|Angus_(surname)|Angus_(film)|Angus_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)|Angus_(UK_Parliament_constituency)|Angus_(disambiguation) top 10 (you can only enter 10) pages of things called Angus (even excluding the cattle breed for now) show that the council area does not even have a bare majority of views. The film (with Kathy Bates, George C. Scott, et al) and the given name article are both relatively popular and significant. So, at a minimum, the basename should be moved to the disambiguation page. And 2) the cattle breed is obviously often referred to as "Angus": ("breeds such as Hereford or Angus are calmer than continental breeds"). So, |Angus_cattle|Angus,_Nebraska|Angus,_Texas|Angus_(given_name)|Angus_(film)|Angus_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)|Angus_(UK_Parliament_constituency)|Angus_(disambiguation) adding in "Angus cattle" to the pageviews analysis shows the breed with nearly 2/3rds of the pageviews for "Angus" articles. And the cattle breed is certainly at least on a par with the Scottish council area for significance. So by all rights, the basename should redirect to the cattle article as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you take out a trivial 1995 childrens film (obviously trivial entertainment subjects like films and albums hoover up massive page views) the encyclopedic subjects left are all centered on the ancient and modern Scottish county. It's one of those few cases where there genuinely is a real WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and while "apple" still directs to the fruit, rather than the brand, no reason why a county should be unseated by its cow In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The orginal proposal made no sense as there has never been a city council called Angus, but the article covers not just the council area, but also the registration county, the lieutenancy area, the district, the county and the kingdom, all of which have existed at one time or another with slight variations in boundaries. --Deskford (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then how about the alternative proposal of Angus, Scotland, below? Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the primary topic from which all other uses of Angus are derived. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the only reason for thinking it's the primary topic is that it's the one from which all other uses of Angus are derived, that's not a valid argument at all. See the example of Boston/Boston, Lincolnshire given beolw, and many, many others. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Angus (disambiguation) → Angus. Similar to how Cheddar is a disambiguation page, again involving a place in the UK and a food named after that place. Boston is named after Boston but that doesn't seem to be problematic. f  eminist  14:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be well and good if there was a food called Angus. There's not. There is "Aberdeen Angus beef" that is called "Angus Beef" in one country, but it is not just called "Angus" anywhere. Cheddar and Gouda are different as the cheeses are genuinely, and generally, referred to by their mononyms. Angus beef is not.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  22:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Support Angus (disambiguation) → Angus. The local government area meets neither of the criteria normally used to determine a primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And see below for the new name of this article. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move to Angus (council area), per and, and the dab page to Angus. The claim that Angus cattle and their beef isn't known as just "Angus" in various contexts is demonstrably incorrect; in a cursory search I find many sources that do so in different countries.. In North America, there's even an American Angus Association located at angus.org. Additionally, there's is the highly notable name Angus (given name) and its variants like Aengus (given name) and Aonghas (given name). And finally, the name of the Irish mythological figure Aengus is often written Angus, as are the names of Óengus I and Óengus II of the Picts, among others. Under no definition is the council area the primary topic of the term "Angus".--Cúchullain t/ c  19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Even without looking at Angus cattle, the council area does not have a majority of views among several ambiguous subjects, despite being at the base name.|Angus_(given_name)|Aengus|Angus_cattle|Angus_(film)|%C3%93engus_I|%C3%93engus_II|%C3%93engus_of_Tallaght--Cúchullain t/ c 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 * WP:CONCEPTDAB. All uses derive from the historic area of Angus, which is not the same thing as the current Angus local government area.  Either make a CONCEPTDAB page, or make a new article on the history of Angusshire.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * True of the cows, but the name "Angus", figures such as Aengus or Oengus I (both also known as Angus), and others aren't derived from this council area.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 * To the suggested location, oppose. As others have said, Angus is not a city nor as a region is it primarily a council area (unlike, for instance, 'Highland' or 'Dumfries and Galloway'). It is a traditional region and province of Scotland. Scottish provinces pose some naming challenges for the guidelines because they are neither represented by modern administrative structures nor are they out of use as concepts (both in historical writing and modern community identities); nor when they are represented by modern structures are they represented coherently. When a province happens to be, also, a modern administrative area, like Fife, Moray or Angus or even a defunct modern administrative area like Argyll, Ross or Tweeddale, having separate articles fragments the content and leaves the encyclopedia much poorer. Non-Scottish Wikipedians will find these issues difficult to understand and will expect to be able to impose the closest thing Scotland has analogous administrative units in the USA, Australia, etc. As things stand, Wikipedia has no standard guidelines for Scottish provinces/districts but precedents suggest that Province, Scotland is strongest standard: e.g. Lorne, Scotland, Carrick, Scotland--but the sample size is small and it is not standard: e.g. Eskdale (Scotland), Kyle, Ayrshire and until recently Lennox was at Lennox (district).

I suspect that most Wikipedian contributors will not care about how Scottish provinces are treated, so long as the disambiguation problem is resolved. I find it unlikely that the long-standing location of the Angus article is so problematic as to cause serious issues and the desire to rationalize unnecessarily not clearly helpful, it does also seem that the case for this page remaining at Angus is not a clear one, since even in Scottish use the personal name is at least as prominent as the region name. I think the best solution, if the page absolutely had to move, is probably Angus, Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Angus, Scotland, or Angus (region) as I suggested below, would both be suitable to me.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Dohn joe (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

 * Support move to Angus, Scotland and move of the DAB to the base name as proposed. Covers all bases. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Let us try to give max help to any intending closer.

,, I think you all now support this too, correct me if I'm wrong.

, not sure of your exact position on this.

, still opposed to moving the DAB? Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Several oppose !votes above note that the cattle etc. are named after the area. If this were Andrewpedia I might well accept such an argument as relevant to deciding a primary topic,, but it's not, and the policy here is clear that this is not a consideration. Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Here there are two relevant points when it comes to deciding a primary topic. One is usage, which it has been argued is greater for the cattle/beef. I have several issues with this... one is that the cattle/beef is not known primarily as "Angus". The opening sentence from Angus cattle: Angus cattle, known as Aberdeen Angus in most parts of the world, are a breed of cattle commonly used in beef production. Secondly, Angus is not generally used mononymously to refer to be cattle/beef. It was pointed out above however that, in the scope of an article about cattle/beef that can be shortened to just "Angus". There is merit in debating primary usage but we have a situation in which a subject "Angus" (the place) is known only as "Angus". The other subject "Angus cattle" is known primarily as "Aberdeen Angus Cattle" or "Angus Cattle" or "Aberdeen Angus beef" or "Angus beef" and, only sometimes, where the context is clear as "Angus".

 * Primary long term significance, on the other hand, cannot be argued. Angus was a kingdom in Pictish times, going back to the early medieval period. Aberdeen Angus beef/cattle does not have long term significance. Certified beef has been around since the late 1970s, but much of the current interest in the product started in the early 2000s, with the fast food industry promoting it as a premium product.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim is right. In addition I'd point out that "Angus (council area)" is a very poor title. The article does not just describe the council area, it describes the region which has at various times been a kingdom, a county and a district. And the first two for much longer than it has been a council area. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any of my resources on me at present, but to my recollection there was never a kingdom called "Angus". The region itself has had different names over time and it's hard to argue it is the primary topic over Angus (given name), Aengus, Oengus I, Oengus II (all also called "Angus") plus the breed of cow. Angus (region) or similar would also be a good title depending on what the scope of the article should be.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * According to, it was a kingdom. That's the standard textbook for that period. The kingdom is traditionally associated with an older kingdom known as Circinn and the name change is likely to have taken place in the 8th C AD (named after Oengus I) but that's largely conjectural.
 * Given names? Miles away from primary usage.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  09:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Still, the region's name has changed a number of times (Circinn, Angus, Forfarshire) and there are many other notable things of the same name (several of which predate the region).
 * Re the given name, the point is there is no primary usage. The region is not more historically significant than the mythological figure or the Pictish king it's apparently named for, nor is it the primary topic in terms of usage out of all topics of the name.|Angus_(given_name)|Aengus|Angus_cattle|Angus_(film)|Óengus_I|Óengus_II|Óengus_of_TallaghtCúchullain t/ c 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Angus, Scotland would be acceptable.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  09:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly better than the original suggestion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , is it acceptable to you? The goal here is to build consensus. Best of all, if you could cast a positive or even neutral !vote at, that would be a great help to the closer IMO. (And there are several other contributors who could help similarly.) Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd still prefer to leave the article at its present location. But if it is definitely going to be moved, then it should be moved to "Angus, Scotland". -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we might even have consensus on this! Not that it's mine to call. Noting that the proposed target Angus, Scotland has neither significant history nor a talk page, so non-admin closure might be possible. Caution: It would be necessary to suppress the redirect creation when moving this article, to make room for the DAB talk page in the second move (owing to a long-standing software bug). I don't know whether a non-admin can do this. BUT if you have trouble, just do the first move (the article) and close the RM and drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll clean up (that's why we call adminship the mop). I can't close this as I'm involved, but happy to clean up. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As main opposition to the proposed move, I'd be happy for you to do the move Andrew.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in view of the backlog at RM I'm tempted... but I'd have to then say that if anyone objects I'll revert and relist rather than going to WP:MR. Neater if someone else does, so I'll wait a little at least. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact the more I think about it the more I think I should not. The discussion is quite involved, and I'm clearly involved (->. Surely there'a a better closer available. Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Page movers are capable of performing redirect suppression, and in a nutshell, performing these moves in the way they need to be done. Steel1943  (talk)|
 * OK... but without page mover authority, not so? Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I am confused about the point of this inquiry... Steel1943  (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I think a non-admin close would be OK. But I'm not sure whether they have the required permissions to do it neatly. You seem to be saying they don't, as I suspected, I just wanted to be sure. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Yes, the only non-admins that can suppress redirects after a page move are ones who have the Page mover user right. Steel1943  (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case my offer to clean up is material, that's the significant thing. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I finally got around to writing an essay on this common error, or at least starting one. See What is named after what. Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have been omitted from the list of contributors pinged above, but for the record I remain opposed to the move. The page has been at this name for twelve years and I don't see that anything has changed to make its subject no longer primary. As has been argued above, the term "Angus" is only used as a shorthand for Angus cattle or Angus beef when it is clear from the context that cattle or beef are being discussed. The other topics that may lay claim to long-term significance are the given name and surname, but these are already covered in articles with parenthetic disambiguation. --Deskford (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 * My preferred outcome is also that it stays at its present location. Angus, Scotland would be more acceptable than any of the other suggested page moves, but I think, reviewing the above, that this is similar to the Apple/Apple Inc. question and should be decided by consensus.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  13:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angus, Scotland. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6Mh6OWXuH?url=http://www.angus.gov.uk/history/features/buildings/arbabbey.htm to http://www.angus.gov.uk/history/features/buildings/arbabbey.htm

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) 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Council boundaries vs Historic County
The statement "The boundaries of the present council area are the same as those of the historic county minus the City of Dundee..." is not entirely true as before the boundaries were tied up in the 19th century Angus/Forfarshire was a little different - if you go back far enough places like Invergowrie and Coupar Angus were in Angus, but are currently in Perth and Kinross. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Calidum   13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Angus is very accurately and honestly the council area of Scotland. Euanjohnb (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See the history section, this doesn't appear to just deal with the current council area but also the former county also once called Forfarshire.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the rationale is unclear. Why is the current title with natural disambiguation not preferable? Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is fine and Angus was also once a county. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It was a pointless request two years ago and it's still a pointless request. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Angus, Scotland


text:
Josef Witt

Kammersänger Josef Witt (17 May 1901 – 3 January 1994) was a tenor who was a regular performer at the Vienna State Opera before WW II. His name is sometimes spelt Joseph Witt.

In 1923 Witt created the role of Li in Hans Gál's opera, Die heilige Ente, in Düsseldorf. He performed the role of Palestrina in the production of Pfitzner’s opera Palestrina at the State Opera in 1937.

He conducted opera classes at the Akadamie fur Musik und Darstellende Kunst in Vienna until his death in 1990. Singers like Norman Bailey, Walter Berry, Mimi Coertse and Ernst Gutstein, who went on to have important opera careers in Austria and Germany, were among his students.

Roles created

 * The airman in Hindemith's Lehrstück (1929)
 * Robespierre in Gottfried von Einem's Dantons Tod (1947)

Recordings
He made several widely circulated recordings of Strauss operas with Karl Böhm and Clemens Krauss, in which he sang secondary parts in operas like Ariadne auf Naxos and Arabella.

title: Josef Witt


text:
Talk:Abaddon

Plato's Cratylus dialogue
One quick note: when the article cites Perseus in saying that Classical Greek texts don't use Apollyon as a name, it seems nobody noticed its use in Socrates' discussion of the names of the Gods in Plato's Cratylus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguide42 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OtherUses template
Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs).

 * Note that that functionality is now at otheruses1. OtherUses redirects to otheruses, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Abbadon
Should we really be going with the Catholic Encyclopedia for Judaism information? Hold on I'll edit--T. Anthony 12:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we really be going with the Catholic Encyclopedia for Judaism information? '''YUP! Why wouldn't I. It may be that some one does not understand the roots of Christianity'''.

 * Please note: as a rule, Jews are more likely to understand the orginal Hebrew text of the Old Testament than are Christians. Of course every rule has exceptions but, to be more specific, it is more likely that editors of a Jewish-themed work, given their speciality, would understand Hebrew than would their counterparts from a Christian-themed work. Therefore, when it comes to interpreting or translating Hebrew phrases, Jewish sources are more likely to be reliable than are Christian sources. Also note that the Old Testament is, in a sense, an "adopted" part of the Christian Bible, as it had been written many centuries previously by the time the New Testament was compiled and most early Christians were not originally Jewish. By contrast, Jewish tradition has continued unbroken since the time of the writing of the Old Testament and therefore traditional Jewish interpretations of the original meanings of phrases are more likely to be correct than traditional Christian interpretations where the two conflict. Robin S 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Blameless
I've added a link to James Morrow's book "Blameless in Abaddon."

Ben

confusion and overlap
Abaddon, Abaddon (demon), and Apollyon: there's much confusion and overlap that needs sorting out. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed a link to Apollyon because it currently redirects back to Abaddon. We can restore that when the confusion stated above is sorted out. Besdomny (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Destruction vs. Doom
Various IP users keep changing the English translation, "destruction", to "doom". Google 'abaddon destruction' vs. 'abaddon doom' and compare the results. The word abaddon comes from 'abad', to be lost, and in full, the word means 'destruction'. The word "doom", on the other hand, actually means "fate", "destiny", "inevitable result". If anyoen else sees this error inserted, kindly revert it. -- Jake 08:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The Hebrew term Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן ’Ăḇaddōn, meaning "destruction", "doom")
 * ^ That's a mistake. The Hebrew term is derived of the morpheme A'V/B'D (א.ב.ד), denoting Loss rather than Destruction - the proper word for which would be Hur'ban (חוּרְבָּן).
 * Abaddon is either the state of being gone forever or a conceptual place from which nothing ever returns.
 * In respect of mortals it means losing oneself, being lost (or cast) into the void, or lost to God (God exiling/excommunicating you). In respect of things (items, locations, constructs, concepts) it means lost beyond recovery or repair (exempli gratia: Atlantis has sunk to Abaddon).
 * The result is essentially destruction/extinction, but in terms of language and meaning it does not exactly translate to destruction.
 * Doom would indeed be more fitting given its subtleties.
 * The more I think of it, there is not another single word in the English language that I can conjour to accurately and precisely translate the Hebrew into, which would properly encapsulate its granular particularity. Given this, Doom is as close as it gets that I'm aware of. Had I to translate it down to the iota, it would be something akin to "The ultimate place of absolute loss onto perpetuity". 147.235.211.21 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Jesus as Abaddon
I believe there should be mention in this article as ther is in apollyon of Abaddon the destroyer being Jesus, (as the belief goes)who is in the role of destroyer to execute judgement on the this unrighteous/wicked world. Kljenni 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then there is no oposition, I will make this change.Kljenni 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This section has been removed. Here are credible references to refute the claim:  Matthew Henry Commentary on Rev 9 and Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on Rev 9.  Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan Handbook to the Bible, and Believer's Bible Commentary also disagree with your interpretation.  66.177.5.252 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The symbolism used to describe the lucusts is a desrription of Gods people based on the book of Joel and some other clues.They resembled horses..(Joel 2:4)
 * “. . .“Its appearance is like the appearance of horses, and like steeds is the way they keep running. . .” They wore crowns like Kings crown..(Revelation 5:10)
 * “. . .and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”” They have mens faces. They have long hair like a woman..

(Revelation 21:9)
 * “. . .and he spoke with me and said: “Come here, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife. . .”

They have lions teeth..(Joel 1:6) “. . .For there is a nation that has come up into my land, mighty and without number. Its teeth are the teeth of a lion, and it has the jawbones of a lion.”

 * they have iron breast plates..
 * (Ephesians 6:14)
 * “Stand firm, therefore, with YOUR loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness,”
 * (1 Thessalonians 5:8)

“But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation;” They create a sound like chariots.. (Joel 2:5) “. . .As with the sound of chariots on the tops of the mountains they keep skipping about, as with the sound of a flaming fire that is devouring stubble. It is like a mighty people, drawn up in battle order.”

 * The angel of the abyss is the one who holds the key and is locking the dragon away..(Revelation 9:1)
 * “And the fifth angel blew his trumpet. And I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to the earth, and the key of the pit of the abyss was given him.”
 * (Revelation 20:1-3)
 * “. . .And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.”

(Luke 8:31) “And they kept entreating him not to order them to go away into the abyss.”Kljenni 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * (Side note - I tried to clean up your formatting but was unsuccessful. If you reply, please indent correctly so that the conversation can be clearly followed.)  The original text of the section started with "It is a widely held belief among students of the Bible...."  I have given 5 credible and "widely" respected references that counter this interpretation.  The use of Joel to cast Jesus as the destroyer is a fallacy - the locusts he describes are "best understood as real, not as allegorical representations of the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans, as held by some interpreters" (source:  NIV Introduction to the Book of Joel).  Regarding Rev 20:1-3, Jesus is not an angel but is God incarnate (see Hebrews 1, especially 1:13, for a complete description of Jesus's authority over and superiority to angels.)  Therefore he cannot be the angel referred to in Rev 20:1-3.  Thus, if we interpret "star" to mean "angel" in 9:11, Jesus also cannot be the "star" referred to in said verse.  66.177.5.252 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Your 5 references do not change the fact that sincere many Bible students do in fact believe that the symbolism of the locusts represents Gods people and the King of them is Jesus. Jesus is a created being being the firstborn of all creation . Jesus is not the father,nor is he the God of his disciples. Jesus is the one to carry out the orders from God to terminate this system/world  Jesus is the Chief angel (Archangel)  the Locusts picture Gods people, and their King is Jesus. Kljenni 05:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I suppose I could continue a doctrinal debate of whether Christ is an angel or created being or whether he was there from the beginning, but other, wiser folks have deftly handled the matter. Ultimately this is probably not the forum for such a discussion.

 * I did further research to see if I could sustantiate the claim that Jesus as Abaddon is a "widely held belief". Apparently this is only a belief of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Therefore, categorizing it as "widely held" would be disingenuous, since Jehovah's Witnesses account for about 0.8% of the US "Christian" population.

 * Based on this, I will modify the article accordingly, as I realized that is more proper than simply removing the entire section. 66.177.5.252 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It is a widely held belief among Bible students. not all people who read the Bible, not all people who co to school to be a minister. Bible students.Ice9Tea 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I made a good faith attempt to show both sides of the argument, along with credible citations, but it appears that you have simply reverted those edits. I am going to revert them back and ask that we work in a spirit of cooperation to come up with something that shows both sides.  If that does not work, I will have to ask for mediation. 66.177.5.252 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * But Your good faith links the article to a page called "jehovahs witness doctrine of deception" that is very one sided against Jehovahs witnesses. very POV Ice9Tea 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked all English versions of rev 9:11 on biblegateway.com and none of them say "demon Abaddon" --Ice9Tea 01:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

in addition it is not NPOV to link a statement about what Jehovahs Witnesses believe with an anti witness website which even slanders Jehovahs Witnesses in the name of the site.--Ice9Tea 15:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AJA are you going to continue to insert slander against Jehovahs witnesses in the form of reference to their beliefs? even without discussion?--Ice9Tea 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In order to have a discussion you'd have to be making sense. I don't know what you mean by "slander" except that my version refrain from calling Jesus Michael -- which nobody believes except JWs, and is totally un-Biblical. I went looking for a better source but a quick Google search didn't find one. A.J.A. 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok your references to the beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses that you keep inserting into the article are a website called "Jehovahs Witness Doctrine of Deception". Sounds slanderous to me. Obviously not to you but is definately POV. There are over six million people who have studied the scriptures and know the true identity of Abaddon, it is not even a secret. Can you find more than 6 million other people as a group who even have heard of Abaddon? --Ice9Tea 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Other than the need for a better source (which I looked for), there's nothing in your comment that should impact the article. A.J.A. 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I will bring the source. thank you--Ice9Tea 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I realize you don't like the name of the "Jehovahs Witness Doctrine of Deception" reference, however, I previously mentioned it was the only reliable online reference I could find during my google searching to see if I could sustantiate your original POV that Jesus as Abaddon is a "widely held belief". WP:NPOV does not require references to be neutral.  The goal of NPOV is for articles to give proportionate weight to facts (or disputed facts).  Ergo, many (perhaps most?) references for controversial topics will be of one POV or another.  Another pillar of Wikipidia is WP:Verifiability - by removing reference to facts cited in the article, you are essentially violating this pillar.

 * Mentioning that 6 million people believe as you do really does not help your cause, either, because organized Christianity makes up approximately 150 million people in the US alone. 66.177.5.252 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The source you ref is not credible. nor is it in line with the high standards of wikipedia to go to someones enemy to get a reference as to what they believe about a topic. I am sure you would agree. please remove the POV ref. called "Jehovahs Witness Doctrine of Deception" as it is inappropriate, misleading and untrue.--Ice9Tea 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Nameless user at 66.177.5.252, your point of view edits should stop. Please listen to reason, I had reverted the article back to the state it was in when I first found it, though you have reverted it to again promote your opinion that Jehovahs witnesses are being deceptive. please revert to last edit by woloflover once more. there need not be mention of Jehovahs Witness beliefs in the article, so in this respect both of you have won the debate. I will continue to remove slander from the article for as long as you two (or one) continue to insert it.--Ice9Tea 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Both sides of story?
these links to anti JW sites are POV and express the opinion of that side. Why would you use anti JW websites to reference what JW's believe. why not use a reference to JW literature. I have reverted.Wonderpet 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Libel
user at IP address 66.177.5.252 as per Wikipedia policy on Libel, which is that it should not be done on Wikipedia pages, and per WP:3RR which states that in the case of reverting to remove Libel it does not apply, and because linking to websites that defame Jehovah's Witnesses has been done repetedly to this article, I will continue to revert to remove it as often as is necessary. please stop it. Wonderpet 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The exception is WP:BLP, which doesn't say no critical sources can be cited and in any case only applies to statements about specific living persons, not whole religions. A.J.A. 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look again at the definition of libel which is defined as the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. The continued assertion that JW's have a doctrine of deception, and using a website thus named is libelous and therefore not encyclopedic. I have referenced the statement about JW beliefs on the identity of Abaddon with a reliable source published by their own publishing entity. I am asking nicely, before you go too far please stop inserting libel into this article. Wonderpet 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see from the history that you removed information about former JW beliefs. A.J.A. 04:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * fair enough.Wonderpet 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AJA you stated that it is better to state what the belief was rather than to state that it was different, so at your request I revise.Wonderpet 19:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Dear editors, I've come into this debate rather late it seems. Coming from articles commonly targetted by different flavours of Christianity, I have become quite adept at spotting really dodgy tabloid sensationalistic style pseudo-religious drivel.  This article seems to have it present.  Citations 6 through to 10 are the dodgiest things I've seen since someone linked 'freemasonrywatch.org' as a citation to the freemasonry article.

 * If your argument put forwards is anti-JW, fair enough, I've no qualm with that. I do, however, have a qualm with a messy article citing rubbish follows by a he says she says bullshit argument here over whether it's libel, religious freedom, or anal sex with monkeys.  Oh wait, that's the AIDS article, sorry.  My suggestion is, however, that you place mention that it's controversially asserted by <$religion> that <$religion> have stated that <$deity> is actually <$deity>.  No weasel words, no rubbish sources to religious fanatics home pages who delve into bible prophecy and the reading of chicken ovums to discern the future.  Let's keep it encyclopedic, please.

 * Thus, cleanup. Please.  Before I do.  In which case there won't be much left to this article because there's not much to be said on the topic.  If the controversial comments remain, they should be stated as a point of view of <$religion> or <$group> and not just random allegations sourced primarily with southern United States baptist websites that also host wonderful things like Chick tracts that claim Freemasons worship satan, Islam worships the moon god which is the arch enemy of Yaweh, and if you're homosexual your family die and go to hell with you.  (And if you haven't read those wonderful little ditties, I suggest you talk to your local baptist minister immediately because as far as he's concerned you're going to hell for ignorance, brothers and sisters.)  May <$deity> bless you and keep you all.  :) Jachin 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * So, Jachin, I'm guessing you're not Southern Baptist. You didn't think you could make comments like that and not bring some attention to yourself?  FYI, my father's been in the square for over 30 years - 32°.  He's Southern Baptist.  Ole Grandpa is York Rite...I do, however agree with you above; there isn't much to be said on the subject of "Abaddon", and the JW/Protestant debate is old.Mikepope (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Planning a rewrite
All concerned, I am planning a rewrite of the second half of the Abaddon article which is presently dealing with the topic of Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs on the identity of Abaddon in a POV manner. What has happened here is some one at some point in the past has inserted external links to anti JW sites as proof of what JW's believe, and while this may be acceptable by some standards it is not in line with high encyclopedic standards. I will reference Watchtower publications as a means of stating what this group believes and remove the anti JW sources. Thank you. Wonderpet 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference for what Jehovah's Witnesses Believe regarding abaddon. I am not very good at adding references, so could someon please add this reference? Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 12. That is a reference to JW beliefs regarding abaddon.--Kanata Kid (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

changes without discussion
Please do not make changes to this article without discussion first. Wonderpet 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I have reverted to remove (again) the anti Jehovah's Witness propoganda. Wonderpet 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the edit done 9 Oct 2008 added a manifesto of sorts to this page. I have no idea if this relates to the earlier disputes that apparently were heated with respect to this topic. Regardless, the "manifesto" isn't appropriate to the topic and should be deleted. I'll be happy to delete it, but am giving any interested parties a heads up before I do so. I'll take care of the deletion in 48 hours unless someone has already done so by then. Aramink (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Slant
Apparently this article is in the midst of some conflict, however I was struck while reading it that the phrase "Through continued study and using the Bible itself to aid in interpretation this group now believes Abaddon to be representative of Jesus in his role as Jehovah's executioner of divine judgement on an unrighteous world.[6]" seems to advocate the idea that Jehova's Witnesses believe what they believe simply because they have studied the bible more, and have used the bible to interpret itself. Something a bit more neutral like "Jehovah's Witnesses believe Abaddon to be representative of Jesus in his role as Jehovah's executioner of divine judgement on an unrighteous world.[6]" might be preferable.

--69.29.11.198 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree at first glance the statement does seem to lend more credence to the JW belief however it was not written this way, it was written to reflect their own changed belief on the ID of Abaddon which came as a result of continued study. This is similar to the statement at article Trinity which states "The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data..." this too might be construed to represent trinitarian beliefs as the Biblical Truth except that it is in regard to the developement of the theory and not directly in comparison to alternate beliefs.Wonderpet 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong page
None of this JW stuff belongs on this page anyway. That's the subject of the Abaddon (demon) page, not this one. -- Jake 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but good luck getting two religious factions to stop obsessively fighting each other over their made-up beliefs in inappropriate fora. DarthSquidward 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Opinion?
What does this mean: ?

69.54.28.201 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Word Used as Insult
Anybody ever heard the term "abaddon" used as an insult in some cultures? I was listening to a conversation between two Scotsmen and they were using the term to describe someone they didn't care for.Mikepope (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly misheard "a bad 'un"? :) Hairy Dude (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About using CARM as a source
I posted this on someone else's talk page after they kept putting a link to CARM in the article.

Using CARM to point out the JW's point of view is like quoting a militant Islamist website as a reference on Buddhist doctrine. No fundamentalist protestant doctrine is provided by that CARM link except for "the JWs are wrong." As for the links supposedly being one sided, fundamentalist protestant view have been provided, (see the links in the line "Some bible scholars believe him to be the antichrist or Satan."). These links are the source material for the fundamentalist protestant view, just like watchtower articles and Charles Taze Russell's writings are the source of the JW beliefs. The link to CARM ultimately does not contribute anything to the article anymore than a link to JW site quoting Matthew Henry and saying "that's wrong." I know darn well I don't own the article but I am not going to allow anyone to allow JWs and fundies to use the article for petty arguing over tertiary adiaphora. If we allow the links with fundies saying "the JWs are wrong," we have to allow JW links saying "the protestants are wrong" to keep the articles from being one sided. It is easier to just all views as advocated by the original sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a couple of recent edits that have been undone
The only mention of locusts in Joel is 1:4, which is about normal (but still scary) locusts. The only thing comparable in Joel to Abaddon's locusts are the great and strong people in Joel 2:2. The author of Revelation ("St. John") did indeed use the name Abaddon to refer to an angel (just read the book, ninth chapter) and that was the first recorded instance of Abaddon refering to an angel instead of a place. Also, Revelation clearly states that Abaddon is the angel of the bottomless pit ("the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in Greek his name is Apollyon." - Rev 9:11). If there is clear documentation that some notable theologian or denomination (the JWs are already covered) that believes Abaddon is not described as the angel of the bottomless pit in the Bible, or that Joel did indeed somehow write about Abaddon's locusts while managing to keep the subject (locusts) completely separate from the appropriate description (of the mighty folks in the following chapter), then by all means provide who they are and what they wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this quote better.
On the page, you use a quote from some random guy named Gustav Davidson who uses the term "noncanonical". Can you please explain how the concept of "canon" enters into a bunch of mythical names for vague entities that don't actually exist? Thanks! Just want to avoid Random Quote Dropping, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.143.183 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * You're talking about
 * "Some theologians believe Abaddon to be just an angel. Concerning the angel holding the key to the bottomless pit from Revelation 9 and 20, Gustav Davidson, in A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels, writes:"
 * Right? Considering Davidson quotes the Bible, I would guess it is safe to assume that canon refers to Biblical canon.  The beginning of the article explains that Abaddon is also known as Apollyon/Apollion, and that he is named in Revelation chapter 9.  The sentence gives a short explanation of who Davidson is, and he is quoted because he concisely sums up the argument that Abaddon is just an angel.  The quote by itself may be meaningless to someone who hasn't read the rest of the article, but it does work within the article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I came for Masonry info...
Where is the secret info?

 * -) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

stop fighting
JW should have a separate section. JW beliefs are more different from other American Protestants than Roman Catholic vs Southern Baptists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Apollyon redirecting to Abbadon
There is no good reason why Apollyon should redirect to Abbadon. From the point of view of the greeks, the originator of the term Apollyon, this was the greek name for the god Apollo, therefore it should direct the reader primarily to the article on the greek god Apollo, not a judeo-christian topic on something entirely different. It is both disrespectful and baffling. The connection between Apollyon, Apollo, and Abbadon are more suited for a 'see also' link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.182.149 (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 * No modern academic sources consider ApollYon to be part of the same root as ApollO. Apollyon means "destroyer," as does Abbadon, and the book of Revelation gives both forms as different names for the same being. Apollo could be derived from a variety of Greek words, or more likely from the older and quite similarly named deities from surrounding regions, such as Aplu. So, we have sources actually listing Apollyon as a being in Christian mythology, and no sources for him being Apollo (your false cognate conclusion does not count). How is it disrespectful? I'm honestly offended at the accusation. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apollon is apparently a possible origin of the name Apollo, and "Parnopius" (Locust) is attached to his name. This bears discussion and consideration I think. LeapUK (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources to connect Apollon to Apollyon. There are numerous sources that only discuss Apollyon as the Greek form of Abaddon, without connection to Apollo.  The few sources I'm finding connecting Apollo to Apollyon only discuss how some later interpretations connect them in a false cognate, with only one exegetical work suggesting that a pun was intended.  The most that could be done is discuss this in this article, but it's not enough to separate Apollyon from Abaddon.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rabbinical Literature
'In some legends, Abaddon is identified as a realm where the damned lie in fire and snow, one of the places in Hell that Moses visited.[3]'

This section seems a tad vague, citing a source that goes only by the name of 'The Sacred Texts.'

I, for one, have never heard any mention of Moses having visited Hell (or Heaven), and I was wondering from what sect of the Judeo-Christian religions this actually comes from. Hotel-c (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you actually check the link that's in the citation, you'll find the source for that statement is Chapter IV of Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews (an almost standard collection of Haggadah and Midrash from the Talmudic era and later) hosted at the Internet Sacred Text Archive (sacred-texts.com). Judaism has a number of commentaries and legends that elaborate, expand, and build on Biblical concepts that are not found in Christianity since they became separate religions two millennia ago.  It may help if you stop thinking "Judeo-Christian," and acknowledge that while Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) are all Abrahamic religions, they are still distinct and separate religions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I did actually go to the link and read the account, but saw no mention of the title of the collection. As for the Judeo-Christian part, I honestly didn't know what else to refer to them as [edit: Believe me, I fully recognise Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as distinct religions, I was merely noting that there are shared aspects between them] (Semitic, maybe?). Anyway, I was just surprised to read that version of the story which I had never encountered before. [more edit: After having briefly reading the story of Ginzberg, I can understand how his work has passed me by- most of my exposure to Judaism has been either through a reconstructionist lens (i.e. Less than religious) or from an orthodox perspective.] Anyway, thanks for the info.

Hotel-c (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew Pronounciation
In the opening sentence, the Hebrew pronounciation is given as "'Ǎḇaddōn", but since there is no Dagesh in the Bet shouldn't it be "'Ǎvaddōn"? Later in the article it is written "avadon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.159.79 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Abaddon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150607035557/http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1868&commInfo=5&topic=Revelation to http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1868&commInfo=5&topic=Revelation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150102101859/http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Rev/Rev_009.cfm=Revelation to http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Rev/Rev_009.cfm=Revelation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Abaddon. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1868&commInfo=5&topic=Revelation
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Rev/Rev_009.cfm=Revelation

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence doesn't make sense
Here's the lead sentence to this article: "The Hebrew term Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן, 'Ǎḇaddōn), and its Greek equivalent Apollyon (Greek: Ἀπολλύων, Apollyon), appears in the Bible as both a place of destruction and by two different angel names (Hades and Lucifer.)" The terms "Hades" and "Lucifer" don't appear in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, and in the New Testament Abaddon and Apollyon appear in a single verse, and neither one is equated with Hades or Lucifer in that verse. So it is not clear exactly what the first sentence is saying. I think I'll remove the bit about Hades and Lucifer in the opening, although if someone wants to rewrite the lead sentence in a clearer form, go right ahead. Alephb (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - "Christianity," "New Teastament," last paragraph
Apparently there has been quite a lot of arguing over this page already, so not trying to throw fuel on the fire. The last paragraph in the section referenced above however needs to be set off as being the view of a particular religious group and citations included:

''Full Preterism In scripture, the Greek name for Abaddon is Apollian, which happens to be the very name of the 15th Legion of the Roman army that laid siege to Jerusalem for five months and destroyed it in 70 AD. Interestingly, the prophets including Daniel, Jesus and John the Revelator, foretold of this destruction that would occur before that 1st century generation passed away. It was predicted that there would come to be 4 kingdoms: Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome on the earth. The 4th kingdom Rome was represented by Iron and it was a composite beast made up of the previous kingdoms which had been conquered. The Empire of Rome ruled the world in the lifetime of Jesus which is exactly when the prophecy foretold that the kingdom of heaven would destroy the power of that earthly Roman kingdom and it did, but not with physical weapons, but with spiritual ones through the spread of the good news of God's kingdom under Christ in the 1st century. The old Jewish age passed away and the new heavenly kingdom age under Jesus began. Other views often overlook audience relevance and time statements which is crucial in understanding Daniel, The Olivet prophecy and Revelation which are all written about the same last days events in the 1st century.''

If these steps are taken, no reason the paragraph can't remain in the article. Otherwise it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonblaylock (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , removing tag.   SITH   (talk)   18:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edinburgh Encyclopedia -- Questionable Source
The article currently has this sentence: "The Edinburgh Encyclopedia of 1832 includes another view: "There can be no doubt that the Pythian Apollo is the same as the Ob and Abaddon of the Hebrews, which the Greeks translated literally Apollyon."[5]" It's sourced to an 1832 (!) encyclopedia, it contains a statement that the encyclopedia itself does not endorse, and the idea that the Hebrew Ob = Apollo is the sort of thing you'll never find a living scholar say. Should it really be in the article? Alephb (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous interpretation?
In the section 'New Testament', a verse from the Bible is reference: Revelation 9:11:

"A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans."

It is suggested that this is the first known reference to Abaddon as a being rather than a place. But the verse above is ambiguous, as the subject could be either "a king" or "the angel", or it could be referring to "the bottomless pit". --82.21.97.70 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * It's not ambiguous. The king (over the scorpion-like creatures) is the angel.  The name cannot be referring to the Abyss, because Abyss is feminine and it says "the name OF HIM" (αὐτῷ). 172.75.77.7 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Proverbs 6:32
A previous editor of the Christianity section seems to be confused about Proverbs 6:32, claiming that the Brenton Septuagint Translation (an English Translation of the Septuagint) "added" the word "to" into the verse which he says literally reads "destruction his soul obtains". Since this is in the section attempting to show anthropomorphic ways in which Abaddon is used, I can only conclude that he has no understanding of the original languages and thinks "destruction" is the subject (nominative case). It's not. Adulterer is the subject, destruction is the direct object (accusative case), and soul is the indirect object (dative case), thus the Brenton translation, "But the adulterer through want of sense procures destruction to his soul." Destruction is the thing procured, not the one procuring. The soul is not the thing being procured but the recipient of the thing procured. I would be happy with removing the verse from that section entirely, but I erred on the side of preservation. At any rate, if it remains included, it should be noted, as I did in the article, that the Hebrew verse does not contain Abaddon anyway. And if it remains included, maybe the original editor would like to say why he thinks "destruction" in Proverbs 6:32 is used anthropomorphically. 172.75.77.7 (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

KJV vs an actual Jewish translation in referencing the Hebrew Bible
It seems to me if we are talking about an understanding of the meaning of a Hebrew word in a Jewish context we should at the very least use a Jewish translation. A standard Jewish text in English is the JPS 1985. It is notable when consulting JPS that Abaddon, like Sheol, is not translated at all, but rendered as Abaddon and Sheol.

Example: עָר֣וֹם שְׁא֣וֹל נֶגְדּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֥ין כְּ֝ס֗וּת לָאֲבַדּֽוֹן׃ Sheol is naked before Him; Abaddon has no cover. https://www.sefaria.org/Job.26.6?lang=bi

I would like to suggest that Wikipedia follow this template in the Hebrew Bible section (only).

I also would like to note that no standard Jewish translation in English uses the term Hell in Prov 15:11 and 27:20 as in those verses that understanding is explicitly Christian.

I will let this sit a while and then make the edit if there are no objections. Mweisenfeld (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Changes made per above Mweisenfeld (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Apollion in the play Lucifer
Apollion is the name of one of the rebel angels in the 17th century play, Lucifer, by Joorst den Van Vondel, but I wouldn't know how or where to add it to the article. Violetyimlat (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abaddon


text:
Little Child

"Little Child" is a song by the English rock band the Beatles from their 1963 UK album With the Beatles. It was written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney for Ringo Starr, but Starr was instead given "I Wanna Be Your Man" as his album song.

Background
McCartney describes "Little Child" as being a "work song" or an "album filler". He admits to taking the melody of the line "I'm so sad and lonely" from the song "Whistle My Love" by British balladeer and actor Elton Hayes. The phrase "sad and lonely" also appears in the Lennon-McCartney number "Bad to Me", originally recorded by Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, as well as "Act Naturally", which the Beatles covered (with Starr singing) for the album Help!.

Recording
The song was recorded in three different sessions, with the first on 11 September 1963, where the Beatles recorded two takes. They later returned to it the next day, recording 16 takes, including overdubs of piano from McCartney and harmonica from Lennon, which he plays non-stop throughout the song. They later returned to it on 3 October, when they recorded three more takes. In the stereo mix, the harmonica pans from left to right for the solo, then pans back from right to left after the solo. The song's solo follows a "twelve-bar blues format that does not appear in the rest of the [song]."

Reception
Music critic Richie Unterberger of AllMusic said of the song: "It might have been one of the less sophisticated and impressive tracks on the record, but it was still pretty good", and "'Little Child' might not be a work of genius, but it's sheer rock 'n' roll fun".

Personnel

 * John Lennon – vocal, rhythm guitar, harmonica
 * Paul McCartney – vocal, piano, bass
 * George Harrison – lead guitar
 * Ringo Starr – drums, additional drums
 * Personnel per Ian MacDonald

According to MacDonald, the vocals were "credited to Lennon and McCartney, but more [likely] the former double-tracked." However, it is possible that McCartney sings a lower harmony to Lennon's lead during the verses. Moreover, McCartney can be heard singing "Oh yeah" at the end on his own, which suggests the original credit is probably correct.

Cover versions
Wreckless Eric covered the song with James Nicholls for Mojo magazine's CD We're With the Beatles in 2013. The song was also covered by the fictional band Snow Pink on an episode of the television series CHiPs, titled "Battle of the Bands" (1982).

title: Little Child