Talk:Second Apocalypse of John
 | A fact from Second Apocalypse of John appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- ... that there will be no racial differences in heaven, according to the Second Apocalypse of John, because "the whole human species will rise bodiless"? Source: ""There is clearly no risk of racial discrimination in heaven... but the question is no longer focused on bodily resurrection, and the answer ... exclude[s] the relevance of any shape or form of body" ([1])
- ALT1:... that the earliest reference to the Greek Second Apocalypse of John already identified it as apocryphal and not actually written by John of Patmos? Source: "The earliest attestation of this work ... is mention of a pseudo-Johannine apocalypse" ([2])
Created by Srnec (talk). Self-nominated at 23:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- See comment below. - Interesting:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Nice article and interesting. I could access Court but Whealey was through a paywall (except for first page) but happy to AGF. The premise of the hook is interesting. However, the explicit statement is about “discrimination” rather than “differences” in the article so there’s a slight inconsistency with the hook, IMHO. The primary source quote in the article isn’t quite the same as saying “no racial differences”. I think to be able to tick the inline citation for the proposed hook then the Court statement in the article needs also to say that there will be no racial differences - which of course he does in his book.
Another query is that I wondered whether there’s potential for it to be hookier. Court’s interpretation of lack of racial differences is that therefore there’s no “risk of racial discrimination in heaven” - that sounds very hooky to my ear! Wondering what you thought of something like: “that there’s no risk of racial discrimination in heaven according to an interpretation of the Second Apocalypse of John”, or something along those lines. Just a thought. (I also just tweaked the article because it seemed to say the that the Apocalypse directly stated there was no discrimination - whereas it’s Court’s interpretation.) DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the word "interpretation" reduces the "hookiness" greatly. Everything less than an exact quotation is somebody's interpretation, after all. I would have no problem changing "differences" to "discrimination" in the original hook. Here are another two ALTs:
- ALT2:... that according to the Second Apocalypse of John humans will be neither "fair-skinned, nor red-skin, nor black" at the resurrection? Source: you know
- ALT3:... that the Second Apocalypse of John paints a picture of the Last Judgement in which Christian emperors are driven like slaves and racial discrimination is no more? Source: "at the Last Judgement Christian emperors 'will be driven like slaves and cry like babies'" (Whealey, 535) plus Court (see above)
- I'm hoping you'll find the "paints a picture" wording sufficient to cover "as interpreted by scholars".
Srnec (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
with ALT3 (ALT2 also fine), good to go - thanks. You’re right that ultimately everything is interpretation. But in the original hook the way it’s worded would give (to me) the sense that “discrimination” is explicitly referenced. “Paints a picture” works for me though. (AGF’ing on Whealey as it’s behind a paywall). Good work. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Confusing hatnote
editCan we do something about the very confusing hatnote? I had to reread it a few times to understand why an article titled "Second Apocalypse of John" started with a note that said "This article is about the first apocryphal apocalypse of John". In order to properly understand the disambiguation as written, the reader must know 1) that the first Apocalypse of John is also known as the Book of Revelation (I didn't know this, and in fact the former redirects to the latter), 2) that the Second Apocalypse of John is apocryphal, 3) that there's a third Apocalypse of John, which is also the second apocryphal Apocalypse of John. All of this knowledge is necessary before the reader even gets to the first real sentence of the article in order to figure out if they're in the right place (which is the purpose of dab pages and hatnotes). Is there anything we can do to alleviate this? One thing to consider is if any of the other common names of this work (e.g. "Apocryphal Apocalypse of John") could be used as WP:NATURALDIS. @Srnec who appears to be a major editor here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Apocryphal Apocalypse of John" is ambiguous. I'm not 100% sure why there is a hatnote, however. I suppose it's trying to prevent confusion between the so-called "Second Apocalypse of John" and the so-called "Second Apocryphal Apocalypse of John". We could ditch the hatnote. Or we could use something like:
- What do you think? Srnec (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah something like that would be much preferred to hitting the reader (e.g. me) with a super confusing hatnote right at the top. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)