Talk:Angel/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Angels Template

I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Angels_by_Type is an excellent page to use for this article. Initially, it was placed in the "Individual Angels" section of the page. In my opinion, the information is well cited at both the bottom of this article, and the pages linked to each area. Rather than Ian.Thompson and I arguing, I'd like to open this up to the community. Does it belong, or not? If not, what can be done to improve it for re-posting? Twillisjr (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The arrangement of the angels, and the inclusion of some figures over others is original research at best, personal preference (POV) at worst. The figures that were included and their arrangement do not match up with any notable hierarchy, some figures are given undue weight, and two entries (Nephilim and Goliath) are almost never described as angelic in any historical and/or notable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The arrangement of "Angels" followed by the highest rank as being "Archangels" which includes 11 Angels noted as Archangels in numerous documents is a good start in my opinion. Then, Seraphim and Cherubim below. The removal of Goliath and Nephalim can be accomplished, but does not merit deletion of an entire template from an article page. I am also considering adding a "Misc" section for Nephalim and Goliath. Do you agree/disagree? Please respond to each issue individually, thanks. Twillisjr (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But different authors assign different angels to different ranks. That you're jumping between, nay, not even doing that, but merely proposing jumping between different documents to find one that says Gabriel belongs here and another document that says Jophiel belongs here, and so forth, is original research (see WP:SYNTH). Then there's still the unaddressed issue of due weight. Lailah appears only appears in a sentence or two in a few documents, hardly comparable to the unincluded Zadkiel. I'm not suggesting you add Zadkiel, but pointing out that you've assigned weight to angels based on what can only be assumed to be personal preference. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, as has been said over many months, to edit Wikipedia with additional research and make amends you believe could improve a person's work on the website. I believe otherwise it is vandalism. Are you interested in working on this? The link is above, and I will re-post it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Angels_by_Type Twillisjr (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And as I've said before, you're welcome to read WP:NOTVANDALISM. Your whims are not encyclopedic material, and this is an encyclopedia. It is your responsibility, not mine, to make sure your work meets this site's standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows Ian.Thomson to:

(a) Change the order of Angels as Ian.Thomson sees fit (b) Modify the category of a template (switch Angels or Nephilims to another place) (c) Add Zadkiel to any category of choice

However, Wikipedia does not allow citations to be inside of Templates.

So, I'm having a difficult time understanding why this is my issue again? Please explain.. Twillisjr (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem because your template is nothing but your whims, it is not encyclopedic content. The selection should have been based on a notable work, or maybe (maybe) common features of multiple notable works. You can always cite them on the templates talk page. As it is, the template is might as well be called "angels Twillisjr likes and some creatures Twillisjr thinks are angels despite no notable author ever describing them as such or nearly as such," not "angels by type." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I added Hashmallim and Zadkiel. I changed "Nephilim" section to "Misc" and added "Nephilim" and "Goliath" to it. Do you need me to do any more work for you in order to make sure it meets your standards? Updated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Angels_by_Type Twillisjr (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "base it off of an existing notable hierarchy found in a notable source instead of a mishmash of angels you happen to fancy" do you not understand? Your continual refusal to get that (at times you even refuse to acknowledge it) is disruptive and inappropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

This page appears to have been vandalised, where the overview has been replaced by 'emily brazier'. Can someone who knows how to do so (I'm new to wikipedia) please roll back the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.72.116 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel in the Book of Tobit

"Gabriel is mentioned in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 8:15–17), the Book of Tobit, and briefly in the Talmud,[6] as well as many Merkabah mystical texts." Where in the Book of Tobit? All I can ever remember is Raphael, not Gabriel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideon.judges7 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel has been removed. RobLandau (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Christianity

I find it quite bizarre, that under the "Christianity" section, there are groups listed that are not part of Christianity. The basic tenet of Christianity being the trinitarian nature of God (see Arianism); in addition the Bible is the authoritative word of God, not writings that people in the 18th and 19th centuries created and that Jesus is the only way to God. Whether you like it or not, these are the essential beliefs of all branches of Christianity. Various branches add more on to them. Latter Day Saints and Swedenborgism should not be included under Christianity. Lehasa (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The following was moved here from User talk:AsteriskStarSplat to keep discussion in a single thread. —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the angel page, "New Church" is misleading in that it sounds like a church and it is under Christianity, yet it's doctrines are nothing if not Christian. I do try periodically to clean up vague and misleading references in Wikipedia that would lead people to false and erroneous conclusions.
I really don't feel like actually editing the whole Christianity section of the Angel page, I don't have the time to do this, but I hope that my pointing out the misdirection here would help someone else do this. Of course, if the people who maintain the Angel page are Mormons and "New Church" people, then they will want to keep these sections intact.
Lehasa (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Nontrinitarianism is recognised as part of Christianity by scholars of religion (both by those inside and outside of Nontrinitarianism faiths), and this talk page is not the right forum to debate that fact. Additionally, if you think you have anything new you can contribute specificly about Mormonism, please see the exhaustive discussions at Talk:Mormonism and Christianity; don't forget to look at the 22 archives of that page. —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Angels and beauty

Angels seem to also be a symbol of beauty. The article makes no mention of this. Should we place a template at the top about this? ---Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only as a symbol of beauty, but as an overcomer. For an individual who doesn't "fit in", and one who feels an extreme intimate connection to God (moreso than any other relationship)...come to realize that there is a possibility they truly are a "messenger of God"? One who recognizes hurt and suffering. One who has a strong passion for helping the underprivileged and privileged. One who always puts others needs before their own and one who did not follow the Catholic teachings properly, until experiencing the Sacrament of Penance in a meaningful manner, be an angel? Please let me know. ALVDors (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew

Why are three of the four Hebrew phrases followed by a transliteration while one of them is not. מלאך יהוה isn't pronounced mal'āk̠ YHWH. It's pronounced mal'āk̠ ædəˈnaɪ. Even if you say it should be transliterated as spelled instead of as pronounced, it would be transliterated Yeho'va. מלאך isn't transliterated ml'āk̠. TychaBrahe (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angel. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Seitenstetten Marmorsaal Deckenfresko

Hello, i just need to ask if can one reuse the "Seitenstetten Marmorsaal Deckenfresko" for instance as an album cover or maybe up it on their website without facing any charges? Fenywoods96 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro is Superficial and without Substance

Title is clear, Abort/Retry/Ignore recent edits (compare dates).. Enjoy free will. Twillisjr (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the version of the lead that has been called the "status quo" is lacking, but your recent changes do not improve it. Your first sentence, which you give as the basic definition, is only true within the theology of a subset of Christianity. A good lead should summarize the material in the article and should rarely have a need for citations (which would be found in the body of the article). The "status quo" version is actually the result of one editor (and his sockpuppets) from a one-and-a-half years ago. I would prefer to use this version of the lead as a starting point. It still needs a lot of work, but it's better imo than both what is currently in the intro and what you are proposing. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The version repaired includes facts, proper links, factual citations, is in chronological order, and I now await your alleged productivity. Do research using my information and then you may realize the error in your proposal.

1. The Archangel Raphael physically appeared to human beings in human form. This transformation gives support to Guardian Angels.

2. Daniel and Isaiah links are required, Angels are not Air, readers must know that.

3. Complaintants are so useless to editing this article that my correction of "Angel of his Presence" referring to God still hasn't been realized.

4. The list goes on and on. Twillisjr (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I am having trouble following your arguments above. What I can understand fails both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Our interpretation of bible verses cannot form the basis of edits - you need cites to biblical scholars or academics to backup the interpretation. To the other editors, are there any objections if I re-insert this version of the lead, which is similar to the status quo lead prior to User:Gonzales John and his sockpuppets started messing with the intro? If not, what can make that edit better? Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with that. As is probably clear by now, I was initially confused about what was the 'original' lead. It looked to me like you had rewritten the whole thing, but in fact it was more similar to the original then what was then the lead; I know this doesn't make sense, but I admit my mistake and I'm fine with that haha ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In the Western Orthodox Churches

Western Orthodox Churches profess angels are bodiless and invisible spirits with intelligence, will and knowledge. They also profess angels have been created by God long before He created the visible world.

Differently from other Christian denominations, they believe that "as created beings they have limitations" in heavenly and in the earthly lives: angels don't know the depth of God and the real meaning of Redemption, the human thought and the future even if they proceed from God and can't perform miracles with His own will (source: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Atlanta).

If their substance is conceived in a way similar to that of other Christians, this is not true for the person in its relation with God and with His visible creatures.

It has to be hopefully pointed in the WP article.Ciccio81ge (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Abrahamic religions"

I for one despise this terminology as a catchall phrase for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Abraham did not found any religion. The "inclusive" nonsense needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.46.79 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Expressing distaste for something will not get you very far in changing it on Wikipedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be right when you say that Abraham didn't found any religions himself, although the Genesis account does suggest that he taught his household to follow his own relationship with his God. However, the term that you dislike is valid in that it is a suitable collective term for those religions which claim Abraham as a patriarch (as distinct from a founder). Douglasson (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since last month, it's likely they won't be back. And it's not as though Wikipedia invented the term. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Christ didn't invent Christianity. Since "-ic" and "-ianity" don't specifically mean "founded by", in neither case does it matter. Any further discussion of the appropriateness of the term as used at large is off-topic here, as this page is for discussion of the article. The term is appropriate in the article because, however you feel about the term, it is the term. Largoplazo (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved satanism out of the Christianity subsection into it's own subsection of Abrahamic faiths. Feel free to move it out of Abrahamic faiths if you want to, but I'm sure it's not a branch of Christianity. MCG 16:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to talk about this myself today. The idea of angels within Christianity, might be backed up by Judaism, but the concept of Jewish angels differs from the Christian one, espcially due to the Greek and Platonic influences since the early development stage of Christianity. In (Rabbinic) Judaism, for example, angels are often seen "mirroring" humans or engange in competition. Even the "evil angels" are good in their relation towards God. Dualism of good and evil spirits, is part of Christian angels. Islam again, has its own idea, taking angels from Jewish apocrypha and their own traditions and their own development. There are basic similarities, like "both communicate between humans and God", but these are just basic similarities. In Islam for example, angels do much more than being messengers. I would suggest to treat the Abrahamic religion angels as seperate ideas within the article. This would also make it easier to provide historical developments for each religion.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

The WP:LEAD section in heavily tilted towards the Abrahamic religions. It needs to updated to reflect a broader, more worldwide view. Editor2020 (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael =<> Metatron

One in the same+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.48.203 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Give priesthood keys"

I have a small problem with angels in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being described as having the job to "give priesthood keys." That just happened twice, (Peter, James & John restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood and John the Baptist restoring the Aaronic Priesthood.) Maybe more, but that doesn't place that as the definition of an angel. An angel is by definition one who is sent forth, who gives messages, etc. as stated in the paragraph, but "give priesthood keys" is not part of that definition; it's just an example of what a few of them did once. It's like saying "an Avenger is someone who travels around, saves the world, and snaps his finger while wearing Thanos' glove." One thing on that list is not like the other, and "gives priesthood keys" is not like "gives messages from God." Thoughts? If not, feel free to make the change.--Mrcolj (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Stacey.banh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tone as if angels exist

I think this page does a good job at showing the various types/forms of angels. What I miss, however, is a statement that these are fictional.

I suggest to add the word 'fictional' to the first sentence, resulting in:

> An angel is a fictional supernatural spiritual being who, according to various religions, is God's servant. '

--[[User:bilderbikkel|bilderbikkel (User talk:bilderbikkeltalk) 13:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
works of this class, as novels or short stories:detective fiction.
something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story:We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law."
(Fiction Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
Which type of fiction do your think applies to "angels"? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle I think that all of those definitions apply to the stories told about angels. 142.166.215.52 (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ooooh, never tell a Christian that anything having to do with their God is fictional, even when it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.247.72 (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You're mixing The Holy Bible with The Book of Enoch

You're misleading people by saying Raphael is/was an angel. It Does Not Mention Him in The Holy Bible, he is mentioned in The Book of Tobit, which is Not Biblical canon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(archangel) 67.197.129.155 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Raphael s generally accepted as an angel, if within the Bible or not. Raphael is also part of the catholic canon. "The name of the archangel Raphael appears only in the Book of Tobit (Tobias). Tobit is considered deuterocanonical by Catholics (both Eastern and Western Rites) and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, as well as Anglicans. The Book of Tobit is not, however, acknowledged by most Protestant denominations." ere it seems Raphael is indeed part of the catholic version of the Bible, only Protestants seem to reject this figure. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
"only Protestants seem to reject this figure" Who cares about what they believe? They typically have a view of the Old Testament that is based on Luther's canon and Luther's misconceptions about the Masoretic Text. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Too many images

The sequence of uninterrupted images spans almost 16 section headers, plus a dedicated section. It's clearly too much. Cambalachero (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia is not a gallery where you find a large number of images and looking at a sample of good/feature articles, there are fewer images there than the article we are talking about. I think some of these photos will probably need to be removed if you or someone else is interesting on promoting the Angel article to be good article class. Some consensus needs to be achieved to work out which images are to be removed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't entirely agree - one would expect a lot of images in an article like this. Anyway, I've removed several, and the tag. The choice is not very good & more work is needed really. The article seems nowhere near GA to me, though one never knows what will pass that. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angel/Archive_6&oldid=1193401652"