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.
 

Legends Section Update[edit]

Since the Legends subsection "Christianity" opens with the legend of Chonae specifically referring to Orthodoxy, I have corrected the inaccurate version of the Orthodox legend given in the Catholic Encyclopedia with an Orthodox source - the Synaxarion, the official "Lives of the Saints" of the Orthodox Church. Scholarly commentary on the legend has been left largely untouched, only the primary source for the legend has been changed. 136.242.180.165 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Spurgeon[edit]

This source is. the only one cited to demonstrate that "Charles Haddon Spurgeon believed that Jesus is Michael 'the only Archangel', but believed that Michael is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father". I'm sorry, I can't find in that text either the statement that "Jesus is Michael 'the only Archangel'", nor the statement that "Michael is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father". It does not even contain the word "archangel", much less the quoted phrase "the only Archangel". It does have the phrase "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men", but that is an unsure basis for the claim that "Jesus is Michael 'the only Archangel'", and no basis whatever for the claim that "Michael is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father". Perhaps the editor who insistently reinserts these claims will be so good as to attribute them to sources on which they can be based. This other source does have Spurgeon say that "Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel", and seems quite a good source for the first of the two claims. Perhaps the same editor can cite another source for the second claim. He will then be able to replace with valid sources the present citation, which does not support the two claims made. If I knew of a valid source for the second claim, I would do it myself. As is well known, statements that lack a valid source can be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The editorial comment "although a Trinitarian" seems to be an example of WP:SYNTH not permitted in Wikipedia. It is common belief in the Eastern Orthodox Church that "the Lord" of the Old Testament theophanies was the pre-incarnate Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, a view for which support can be found also among some Western Fathers of the Church. So there is no justification for making Wikipedia declare that there is a contradiction ("although") between believing in the Trinity and believing that the eternally begotten Second Person was manifested even before his incarnation as Jesus Christ. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on both of these. Searching the pdf for the character string "equ" returns no results with the word "co-equal". Searching for "arch" reveals 8 results, none of which are part of "archangel". If the source does not contain the quote then the quote needs to be removed.
The phrase "although a Trinitarian" is WP:SYNTH unless a reliable source can be found that states that this person was actually a Trinitarian. Even then it's not a very proper to address someone by assumption. If the person had stated it, then "[person] was a self-proclaimed [description]" would be much better. Dromidaon (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
hi...this right below is the gist of what I wrote on Esoglou's talk page late last night... He later asked to discuss on article talk...
hello. How are you. While I do appreciate your hard work and scrutiny on articles like this, the fact is that the statements are indeed sourced. And also, frankly, you don't own this article...and you really need to stop suppressing and removing information that you personally don't like. Number one: the statement is now clearly and solidly sourced, and backed up clearly by the PDF ref ”The Angelic Life”, the statement that you keep removing where he said "he's the only Archangel". Did you actually carefully see that PDF source? No valid reason to remove (and none before either, instead of simply modifying and looking for ref, for unsourced statement, that has it now). Number two: you had an issue with the phrase, "although a Trinitarian", as if that even needed to be so "sourced" in that ref, when it's just a point of fact. Not every single syllable in a statement or paragraph needs to have a "source" per se backing it up, as is the case in a number of other paragraphs and statements in this very same article. Yet you're picking at this matter here for some reason. It seems that maybe you're using now front excuses to remove or reduce information from this article that you just don't like. The statement IS sourced, so you removing it has no warrant or justification. There's no need at all for that. The statements are sufficiently sourced. And the WP policy and recommendation is instead of blatantly removing stuff you don't like, then to FIND THE SOURCES. But sources are adequate at this point. Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)` Gabby Merger
Now here the issue put forth is against the term "co-equal to the Father", just because that's not in the source. The point is that it's surely known already (sky blue) that Spurgeon believed that (being a Trinitarian), so there are "no rules" on Wikipedia (remember), to be that over-scrupulous with every syllable or word necessarily (especially with "sky blue" issues). Not every word or syllable in other paragraphs in this very same article is necessarily so "sourced" per se. Nor do they always (necessarily) need to be. But again, even by your admission, the overall point of the edits and statements there are sourced (with like THREE references) proving and backing up the overall point. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:BURDEN. That's "WP policy and recommendation". Only one sentence has been questioned. The one citation that you give for that sentence doesn't support it. I assure you that I have read the cited source more than once. Dromidaon has also examined it. You were expected to heed other editors,. I also expected that you might make use of the help I offered when I pointed to a valid citation to utilize for the first part (though not the second) of the one questioned sentence. Fixing the first part would be an advance. As for the second part, read WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "the only Archangel" is in the ref source "The Angelic Life". It reads: "Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel". And the ref is in the wrong spot. I'll place it correctly now. WP recommendation is to NOT delete sentences etc, but to modify or FIND sources (if there's such a desire for that). (Also see: Zero-revert rule.) Also, again, you dodged the point that Spurgeon was definitely a trinitarian, yet you're acting as if that's somehow questionable, or not already solidly known anyway. And the phrase that he believed or held to: "co-equal to the Father", just because that's not in the source. The point is that it's surely known already (sky blue) that Spurgeon believed that (being a Trinitarian), so there are "no rules" on Wikipedia (remember) (see WP:IGNORE and Wikipedia:No firm rules), to be that over-scrupulous with every syllable or word necessarily (especially with "sky blue" issues). Not every word or syllable in other paragraphs in this very same article is necessarily so "sourced" per se. Nor do they always (necessarily) need to be. Why are other phrases and sentences or words on the article not always in the sources per se? But still left alone? Why the problem here with this? The point was being made that EVEN THOUGH Spurgeon was a Trinitarian (and everyone who knows about him, knows that), he still believed Jesus was Michael, but that Michael was equal to God. So? That's the point there. It doesn't need (necessarily dogmatically) to be so questioned or dissed or removed, simply because that specific ref doesn't show Spurgeon mentioning "hey I believe in the Trinity, but that Jesus is Michael and equal to the Father". If the point is at least BASED on the refs and on "sky blue" known facts. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikilawyering? Mere common sense indicates that a single editor, supported by no other, cannot on the basis of a presumed right to ignore all rules claim to be entitled to edit Wikipedia in whatever ways he wishes in spite of the protests of more than one other editor. WP:SYNTH excludes your attempted synthesis; and it is not only undocumented but false to say that Spurgeon declared that Michael is God the Son, and co-equal with the Father. Esoglou (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
How is it "false" to say that Spurgeon believed that Michael is God the Son and co-equal with the Father if it's clear that Spurgeon said that Michael is Jesus? And it's factual that he believed that Jesus was "God the Son" and "equal with the Father"? Was Spurgeon a Trinitarian or not? How exactly is it false? He (without a doubt, as at least two PDF sources clearly show) said that Jesus is Michael. So where exactly is the "false-hood" in the "God the Son" and "equal with the Father"? Was Spurgeon a Trinitarian? It's established (sky blue) that he was. So how is it so "false"?? Where exactly is this big elaborate "synthesis" on my part, in a basic sky blue established point??? (Misapplication of that on your part) And yes wiki-lawyering and overscrupolosity, which is itself against WP drift and policy.
(And again your comment above showed clearly that you don't grasp the fact that there are NO RULES on Wikipedia! Just general policies. You obviously didn't read the "No Rules" thing. And I don't appreciate you impugning me as purposely "ignoring" anything, and editing stuff willy nilly. That's not what happened. The overall point is sourced, and you have this big hang-up for some reason with the sky-blue point and elaboration and fact that Spurgeon was a Trinitarian...yet believed Jesus is Michael anyway. Why exactly? "I DON'T LIKE", maybe? And using this corny "synthesis" front excuse as a means to suppress points or info that you don't care for. Don't give me this "more than one editor" stuff. You and the other dude hardly make big giant consensus (and consensus is not always right anyway, side-point).
The fact is that you again dodged the point and fact that Spurgeon is definitely a Trinitarian, and it was just factual sky blue elaboration and clarity in the paragraph...and then you're wrongly (???) going so far as to say that the statement is "false". How exactly is it false? Are you saying that Spurgeon was not a Trinitarian? (Please don't waste my time anymore, Eso...with evasions or impugnings or false accusations or wiki-overscrupolisity, etc...I know your history. Don't wiki-batter and edit-war over nonsense like this...because you seem to get into the habit of suppressing points and information that you personally don't like, as if you own the article.) But again, answer the question. Was Spurgeon a Trinitarian or not?? And if so, how is it so false to make the point that he believed Michael was God the Son IF he also said (clearly in the refs) that Jesus is Michael? And at the same time being a Trinitarian? Gabby Merger (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Was Spurgeon a Trinitarian, you ask. By using "although" in the article, you contrast his allegedly being a Trinitarian with his undoubted statement that "Michael is Jesus" (which you change to "Jesus is Michael"). The contrast suggests that in reality he wasn't a Trinitarian. I don't know whether he was or wasn't. It isn't like looking at the sky and seeing what colour it is. What is in question is whether the source you cite links his (supposedly) being a Trinitarian with his saying, as you put it, that Jesus is Michael. If the cited source doesn't make the link, you've been synthesizing, as Dromidaon said. Syntheses of this kind are fine in a forum, but not in Wikipedia.
You also ask whether Spurgeon believed Michael was God the Son, co-equal with the Father. I don't know what Spurgeon believed. Who does? What can be known and documented is instead what he said. So perhaps you mean to ask whether Spurgeon said that Michael was God the Son, co-equal with the Father (unlike those who deny that anyone is God the Son, co-equal with the Father, and unlike those who call Jesus God the Son but say he was not co-equal with the Father). I don't know whether Spurgeon said that Michael was God the Son, co-equal with the Father. If you know, show me. And put your source in the article. Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Esoglou hit it on the head.
The idea that Spurgeon is a Trinitarian is not 'sky blue'. Anyone who has the basic capability of colored sight can determine that the sky is blue, thus a fact that is not needed to be sourced. I, however, have no idea who Spurgeon is, nor do I know what his beliefs are.
And there are rules on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No firm rules specifically states that you don't need to understand the rules to contribute. It also says that it "does not mean that every action is justifiable .. is not an exemption from accountability .. does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule."
It's not necessarily false to say that Spurgeon believed that Michael is God the Son, but that doesn't necessarily make it true, either. Assuming that fact based on another fact is the exact definition of WP:SYNTH.
You are a good editor, Gabby, but my experience has been that you are quick to claim that an editor is wiki-warring with you when they disagree with you, and this is not uplifting nor beneficial. Esoglou brought it directly to the talk page to discuss it and did not make additional edits to the disagreed on section. This is not wiki-warring, but attempting to discuss our differences in an attempt to come to a consensus. Editors need to work towards compromise, not berating someone until they stop fighting. If we cannot come to a compromise on our own we can always escalate the issue and seek consensus that way, but I would prefer to work it out on our own. I think that Esoglou suggestion was sufficient, but if you do not then make some suggestions to come to a compromise instead of fighting that the article is correct the way it is. Dromidaon (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
When I say that Spurgeon being a Trinitarian was a "sky blue" matter, I'm referring to it being "sky blue" with people who deal with theological and religious and biblical and Christian matters and issues. Which presumably (from what I can tell) you guys do. (I'm surprised that you did not know that Spurgeon was a Trinitarian. But it was NOT "false", like you said. It's solidly established. He was not an Arian or Semi-Arian or anything like that. Spurgeon was a Five-Point Calvinist and Trinitarian, big time. And in many circles, that's a very "sky blue" fact. Not sure how you didn't know that.) Heavy interest in religious matters and subjects, particularly Biblical and professed Christian...and churches and religious figures, etc. I did NOT mean that it was "sky blue" for the average joe schmo on the street. I was referring to context. Anyway, the point is the same, Spurgeon was DEFINITELY a Trinitarian, and believed Jesus is Almighty God (in the sense the Father is, etc), but still said that Jesus is Michael, because of believing that Michael is God. See the point? Now if you insist so much on finding an actual source that says "Spurgeon was a Trinitarian", then fine, but I still hold to the position that in context of religious matters, and those who (presumably) KNOW about churches and theologians past and present, it IS kind of sort of a "sky blue" matter. I'm surprised, as I said, Esoglou, to some extent at least, that you are unaware that Spurgeon was definitely a Trinitarian. But also what I'm afraid of (knowing you, frankly), is that even if I do put an actual ref for that particular phrase in the paragraph, you'll maybe find some unreasonable fault with the source, and cry "unreliable" or something. And then start another edit-war, because of never being satisfied. I HOPE that's not the case. (To Dromidaon...I do appreciate your points, but you did not point out that Esoglou is "quick" to accuse ME of purposely "ignoring" things willy nilly, and of "editing whatever I want". And that I don't care about policies or something like that. When that is NOT the case, and is an unfair thing to say. Impugning and assuming. Yet you don't say anything to him about "quick" to this and that. And I do have a point about edit-warring over trifles, or stuff that could be left alone theoretically, given context and already well-known facts.) But there are refs and sources (NOT just "blogs" either) that state the factual point.
Spurgeon's own words:
Then press forward and seek to know much of the Son of God who is the brightness of His Father's glory, and yet in unspeakable condescension of grace became a man for our sakes; know Him in the singular complexity of His nature: eternal God, and yet suffering, finite man; follow Him as He walks the waters with the tread of deity, and as He sits upon the well in the weariness of humanity. Be not satisfied unless you know much of Jesus Christ as your Friend, your Brother, your Husband, your all. Forget not the Holy Spirit; endeavor to obtain a clear view of His nature and character, His attributes, and His works. Behold that Spirit of the Lord, who first of all moved upon chaos, and brought forth order; who now visits the chaos of your soul, and creates the order of holiness. Behold Him as the Lord and giver of spiritual life, the Illuminator, the Instructor, the Comforter, and the Sanctifier. Behold Him as, like holy unction, He descends upon the head of Jesus, and then afterward rests upon you who are as the skirts of His garments. Such an intelligent, scriptural, and experimental belief in the Trinity in Unity is yours if you truly know God; and such knowledge brings peace indeed. Morning and Evening by C.H. Spurgeon
Also, you might want to check out The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), where it clearly confesses a co-equal Trinity, and where Spurgeon edited the Confession, and approved it. Click: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part2
But as I said...If you want every nuance in a paragraph so sourced, because of thinking it's so "original research" or "synthesis" etc, even though (arguably) something like this (in context of people who know or should know, in religious matters) is in many ways a sky blue matter, then so be it. But again, it goes to my point before, that instead of deleting stuff that does not seem so "sourced", then FIND THE SOURCES, per WP suggestion. As I just did. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You left the synthesis of the implied contradiction between being a Trinitarian and declaring that Michael is a name for the Second Person of the Trinity. I have fixed that by removing "although" and changing "but" to "and", thus placing the two matters side by side without declaring them contradictory, as you unsourcedly did. You made statements about what Spurgeon believed, rather than what he said. I have fixed that too. By synthesis again, you had Spurgeon declare that Michael is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father. What Spurgeon's revision of the Baptist Confession of Faith says is that Jesus is "the Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, true and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of the same substance and equal with Him". I have fixed that too by simply using the word "he" in place of "Michael". The Wikipedia reader will conclude that, what Spurgeon says of Jesus, he would also say of Michael, even if he didn't actually say so, and you surely won't insist on an unnecessary synthesis. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)