Talk:Michael (archangel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Bible / Saints / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occult (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merger[edit]

Hi! I have a proposition to merge Saint Michael (Roman Catholic) into this article. Both are exactly about the same. Moreover, the Catholic view is the mainstream view, as most Christians are Catholic. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose The two articles are indeed about the same figure, but the great amount of information about Saint Michael and the Catholic Church in the other article would be disproportionate if inserted here. Instead, the article Saint Michael (Roman Catholic) should be moved to Saint Michael in the Catholic Church. There is no Roman Catholic Saint Michael distinct from the Saint Michael commonly so called. Does anyone object to that move? May I make the move, with someone's support? Esoglou (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that they should not be merged (and to Propositum: It's true that most Christians in the world are Catholic, but this is English Wikipedia, and most Christians in English-speaking countries are not Catholic). But, about your second part, that's not relevant here, but should be brought up at Talk:Saint Michael (Roman Catholic). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! English Wikipedia is de facto the worldwide one. And also, Catholic Church remains the biggest confession even in the countries where English is the native language. Moreover, it's good idea for a Wikipedia to reflect the global, not national point of view. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever about that question, which I think is not decisive one way or the other, what do you think of the Musdan77's refusal to support or oppose here the proposal to move "Saint Michael (Roman Catholic)" to "Saint Michael in the Catholic Church"? Esoglou (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I think that it is a good idea, but maybe let it be discussed at Talk:Saint Michael (Roman Catholic). Best regards, Propositum (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Such moves, if considered uncontroversial, are done in done in great numbers every day. Reaction here seems to show it is not controversial. If anyone disagrees, a revert is easy. Esoglou (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge the 2 articles. The Catholic bits can be toned down if they get in the way too much. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Combining the two would leave an article with over 90,0000 kB, (although I didn't measure readable prose), which becomes a problem for readability. See Wp:Article size "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. ... Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many users edit from low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections." If anything, the section on Catholicism could be trimmed so that it doesn't duplicate the other article. If they're combined, someone will just come along later and split them again. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment @Mannanan51: A merger never results in 2 + 2 = 4. The merged entity is ususally only slightly longer than the longest article. So I don't think that that's a good reason for opposing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Even if in this case 2+2=3, it would still be too long by Mannanan51's calculations. And there remains the disproportion between the abundant Catholic-veneration material and the rest. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose should not be merged - and should be left alone as it is. Hafspajen (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Esoglou, and I have no objection to their proposed move--though it's probably best to play it safe and propose it on that talk page, pinging the participants in this discussion who have commented on it. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the Roman Catholic view and doctrine regarding the Archangel Michael would seem to be stand-alone, different, and separate enough, with separate stand-alone sources on that, to warrant its own separate and distinct article on Wikipedia. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Two distinct encyclopedic topics. They're already much too large to merge, and doing so would impede their development. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The catholic article is too long to be merged. It deserves to be a stand alone article. --Jayarathina (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No it should not merge! Catholic views are not the views of all!Tar62800 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Protestant section does not reflect the magnitude of sources as it should, and the Seventh-day Adventist section has an incorrect statement in it that should be corrected, etc.[edit]

The Protestant section does not reflect the magnitude of sources on this subject as it should, nor of the history of the battle between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism/Catholicism [EO, OO, etc] in this matter theologically, but even in the Protestant section, seems to be still promoting Romanism's theology heavily and down playing the abundant evidence in Protestantism/Scripture to a few words, while the remainder of the article is all about the 'veneration' of angels. In other words, this article is severely lop-sided [heavily]. Perhaps some new considerations are in order?

Protestantism, Scripturally repudiated the theological idea/rationale of the blatant angel-worship of Romanism, of the gnostics/kabbalists, occultic sects, & etc as unscriptural and blasphemous.

Another point to consider, is that the theological stance of the Watch Tower and Tract Society [WTS; Jehovah's Witness], doctrinally, is simply the other side of the same coin of which Romanism teaches. Consider that the WTS openly teaches that Jesus is not God/Deity, by reducing Michael [Jesus] to nothing but an exalted creature, while Romanism clandestinely does the same, by splitting Jesus/Michael into two beings 'traditionally' [not by Scripture], and subordinating His Heavenly and Glorious personage [Michael] into nothing but an exalted creature, while it has Jesus repeatedly/continually dying/dead upon the cross [thus crucifix[ed in place]]. Therefore, it also demotes 'the Logos', in its own way, but the two theologies are born of the same womb.

If some would consider far greater resources than this present wikipedia article, on this subject, please see the detailed documented Protestant, etc, stated beliefs, See section "[8] The Protestant Reformation, The Roman Doctrine, before moving on" for those quotations and their sources - http://awhn.webs.com/jesusinbookofdaniel.htm ; for instance, see Philipp Melancthon [German] for clarity. The sources will vary from English, to German, to Latin, to Greek, and Hebrew, and Italian.

Additionally, the Seventh-day Adventist section is incorrect when it states, "Seventh-day Adventists believe there is and can only be one archangel and that one Archangel is named Michael ...", for just a simple search of the official writings, declares that the Seventh-day Adventists, teach multiple Archangels, but only One Uncreated Creator Archangel, Michael/Jesus. Sources listed as and partial quotations, are:

1. Manuscript Releases Volume Three [Nos. 162-209], p. 19.3 (1) (94%)

Angels and archangels wonder at this great plan ...

2. Sketches from the Life of Paul, p. 332.2 (1) (83%)

... God. He hears angels and archangels magnifying that glorious name. His ...

3. The Spirit of Prophecy Volume 3, p. 440.2 (1) (83%)

... God. He hears angels and archangels magnifying that glorious name. His ...

4. Sons and Daughters of God, p. 295.5 (1) (83%)

Angels and archangels wonder at this great plan ...

5. Maranatha, p. 329.4 (1) (83%)

... the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph ...

6. In Heavenly Places, p. 371.4 (1) (83%)

... the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph ...

7. Sermons and Talks Volume One, p. 241.1 (1) (83%)

Cherubims and seraphims, angels and archangels, are watching the battle that ...

8. The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 1036.2 (1) (83%)

... answer that prayer. Angels and archangels are looking upon God’s ...

There are more sources, when one considers also the statements about "lead[ing]" angels, etc in the Seventh-day Adventist written materials by Ellen G. White. For more, Scripturally on this, see the link and section "[13] Blasphemy of multiple Archangels?"

Secondly, the word "archangel" does not only mean "Chief of Angels", it also means "Highest Messenger", which is exactly who the Logos/Michael/Jesus is. Yes, even the Son sent from the very bosom of the Father. See Mal. 3:1l; Matt. 21:37; Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13; John 1:18, etc.

Lastly, in the Seventh-day Adventist section, they do not subscribe [Scripturally] to the same definition of the word "trinity" that Roman Catholicism [EO, OO, etc] all officially subscribe to [traditionally]. In point of fact, a knowledgeable Seventh-day Adventist, would never subscribe to Romanism's dogma on their 'trinity' as given in their definition found in The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV by Pope Eugene IV - http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html and elsewhere.

In the section on the Jews/Judaism, one should also include that there are Rabbis which equate the Messiah to Michael, even if they did not understand all that that would mean as such.

Please consider the documented sources in the given link at the beginning, for these quotations will not remain buried in obscurity any longer. And God said, "Let there be light..." and ...

Signed, www.pearltrees.com/awhn

107.206.209.224 (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IPA use; pronunciation[edit]

Please note that å is not an IPA symbol and it is UNREADABLE. The value of å is variable across notations and local traditions. This is in contrast to the spirit of IPA as developed by the International Phonetic Association. The transcription [mixåˈʔel] is a typical Wikipedia concoction made of IPA and non-IPA symbols. Such usages are unfortunately widespread in the Wikipedia and should be actively discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.80.235 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)