" 

 Hello, 

 Since yesterday, I've seen and I am a little bit surprised of the recent discussion around the « Gog and Magog » thematic that is occurring in Wikipedia. I didn't want to intervene in the first place but since I'm the one who first mentionned René Guénon's book both in « Gog and Magog » and « Koka and Vikoka » Wikipedia articles, and since these edits are questionned and have been cancelled by a contributor caled PiCo, here is what I have to say about it. 

 # Asserting that the  connection is non-academic, non scholar and of « mystic delirium » nature, as PiCo says, is really not serious. In fact, although there is of course no etymologic derivation between the Sanskrit and semitc names, the comparison between the respective apocalyptic « entities » is an old story in academic references  see Jean Przyluski Revue de l'histoire des religions Vol. 100 (1929), pp. 1-12 Armand Colin Publishing house, Revue internationale de Sinologie, E. J. Brill, 1930, see also Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, 34(2), 1935, among others. 
 # Now, for the islamic version of it, the link  goes backs centuries ago since the translation of Patanjali into Arabic, and this subject is known to islamic scholars. For instance  « An Islamic View of Gog and Magog in the Modern Age », I.Hossein, page 97. 
 #Despite all of this, the main dispute seems to be around the René Guénon reference on that subject, that is to say the mention of Guénon's « Reign of quantity and sign of times » chapter called «  The fissures of the Great Wall » which is probably the best exposition in english langage of the  link as known in islamic esoteriem. It is true that René Guénonis not a scholar in biblical studies, but he is an aknowledged metaphysician (he is definitely not a « mystic » as PiCo writes it). That book has been translated in more than 20 langages, and it is clearly a source that can be used in Wikipedia. Guénon's book has the advantage of summarizing the « traditionnal » exposition on the subject, and such an exposition has its place in a Wikipedia article, side by side with biblical studies. 
 # Also, to be honest, the view on Gog and Magog presented by Guénon is probably as valauable as that of respectable scholars such as ... Reagan and Bush... mentionned in the article in its present form (laughs...) 
 # I think that Xinheart is right when he writes that PiCo has done edit-warring on the subject  the mention of Guénon's book in the « Gog and Magog » Wikipedia article has been done by me, years ago. The article has recently been completely overhauled by PiCo. So I think may be PiCo could have explained tn the TP why he deleted the passage, instead of reverting Xinheart many times.  -    "