Content deleted Content added
Line 292:
The dark mark, as I understand it, is from Harry Potter. That is not to say that it could not be significant in something else, but I am extremely skeptical of someone claiming that it has another significance. This [http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/a/aset-ka/ website] is self-published as it does not have an author. It is thus unreliable and should be removed as a source.
I consider the work self-published and the crucial distinction is the reliability of the organization which published it. This cannot be compared to something written for MIT Press by an MIT professor because MIT Press is widely recognized as a quality press. Similarly, [[the Vatican]] is recognized to speak for the [[Catholic Church]]. Everyone knows [[the pope]] speaks for them. Note that this does not mean that the pope can be cited as representative of what all Catholics think. But he is a recognized source on the iconography of the [[Virgin Mary]], whereas the Asentian Bible is not a recognized source on anything other than itself. To use it as such is to give "the dark mark" a broader cultural significance which it does not seem to have (or there are no reliable citations for at any rate). Note that this in no way reflects on the belief. I think placing significance in the Virgin Mary is just as silly as placing significance in this dark mark. The difference is that it is very clear that the Catholic Church and Catholic culture places an emphasis on the Virgin Mary. Sidestepping the issue of the reliability of the Vatican altogether, I would point out that this is verifiable with legitimate sources other the Vatican. If you think that the dark mark indeed has such cultural significance find a similarly reliable source. [[User:Wikipediatoperfection|Wikipediatoperfection]] ([[User talk:Wikipediatoperfection|talk]]) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)▼
▲I consider the work self-published and the crucial distinction is the reliability of the organization which published it. This cannot be compared to something written for MIT Press by an MIT professor because MIT Press is widely recognized as a quality press. Similarly, [[the Vatican]] is recognized to speak for the [[Catholic Church]]. Everyone knows [[the pope]] speaks for them. Note that this does not mean that the pope can be cited as representative of what all Catholics think. But he is a recognized source on the iconography of the [[Virgin Mary]], whereas the Asentian Bible is not a recognized source on anything other than itself. To use it as such is to give "the dark mark" a broader cultural significance which it does not seem to have (or there are no reliable citations for at any rate). Note that this in no way reflects on the belief. I think placing significance in the Virgin Mary is just as silly as placing significance in this dark mark. The difference is that it is very clear that the Catholic Church and Catholic culture places an emphasis on the Virgin Mary. Sidestepping the issue of the reliability of the Vatican altogether, I would point out that this is verifiable with legitimate sources other the Vatican. If you think that the dark mark indeed has such cultural significance find a similarly reliable source. [[User:Wikipediatoperfection|Wikipediatoperfection]] ([[User talk:Wikipediatoperfection|talk]]) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||