Talk:Michael (archangel)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Classic Protestant View

I am not an expert enough to change anything in the main article, but something should be added by someone for the classic Protestant view. Which is that Michael is not a created heavenly being but a title and name for Christ, especially when He is leading His heavenly armies and such. John Calvin of the Reformed, Matthew Henry of the Puritan-Congregationalist, John Gill of the Puritan-Baptist, William L. Alexendar of the Covenanters, Francis Turretan of the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards of the Puritan-Congregationalist, Charles Spurgeon of the Puritan-Baptist, Matthew Poole, John Wesley of the Methodist and even the Geneva Bible footnotes.

John Calvin stated: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject." Calvin’s Commentaries on The Prophet Daniel, Vol. II, Baker reprint, vol. XIII, pp. 369, 370

John Gill stated: Another prophecy in Dan. xii. 1, 2, 3. represents the second and personal coming of Christ ; for he is meant by Michael, who is as God, as his name signifies, equal to him ; the great prince, the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers. (A Complete Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity, The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987 reprint, p. 617.)

Geneva Bible footnotes stated: “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince... God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel." - Geneva Study Bible: Da 12:1


"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Michael, that is, Christ Jesus (is) the head of angels." - Geneva Study Bible: Rev. xii. 7, Daniel 12:1

Matthew Henry stated: "Jesus Christ shall appear as his church's patron and protector: At that time, when the persecution is at the hottest, Michael shall stand up, Dan_12:1. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev_1:5." -Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

John Wesley stated: "...there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble... before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming. Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it." -John Wesley: Chapter XII Commentary on Daniel

Should I quote the rest? Something needs to be added for this Protestant view which is not Jehovah Witness Doctrine. I am unsure about the Lutheran Party but the other main branches of the Protestant Reformation seem to hold to the view that Michael is the Deity of Christ and not a created heavenly being. Yes, Michael is a Arch-"Angel" but Angel is a English word that is translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek from the word Messenger which in scripture can be used for Persons of the Godhead, Heavenly Beings, or Human people. But this Protestant view holds Christ as the Arch-Messenger, or Chief-Messenger. Any thoughts? -Mikhael, May 6, 2011. (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That is actually not the main protestant thought. Most mainstreem protestants believe the two beings to be different. Lutherans and Anglicans venerate Michael as a saint and an angel, and do not believe he is Christ. Methodists also, despite your exerpt from John Wesley's commentary, also do not teach that Michael and Christ are the same. Infact, I find it hard to believe John Wesley, as an Anglican Priest, believed that himself. Regardless, Methodists do not accept everything John Wesley believed. Welsey himself believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, for example, yet Methodists generally reject this teaching. The idea of Michael as Christ is accepted among Jehova's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists. I am not sure on the official Calvanist or Baptist teachings. I will look more into it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I never said it was mainstream protestant thought, but I did say classic protestant thought. There is a difference. mainstream protestant thought is what is contemporary vs. classic protestant thought is what is majority in historical theology. The quotes I provided were from the leaders and giants of the Protestant churches but like I said I am unsure on the Lutherans but have read that they too supported the view of Michael is Christ but I need to find sources for that. So regardless what majority Protestants may believe today, Protestants in the majority DID believe in the Past that Michael is Christ and that Christ is God-man and should be mentioned in the article. The quoted sources above prove this to be true.. And Jehovah Witness doctrine is different, it teaches that Michael is Christ but that Christ/Michael is only a created angel... -Mikhael, May 14, 2011 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of what the theologians and reformers themselves thought, it is not what any of their denominations currently teach or ever taught doctrinally, and therefore is not "classic protestant". Lutherans especially do not believe the two to be the same as they venerate Michael as a saint. I am Catholic but was raised United Methodist, and the Methodists also do not believe him to be Christ. -Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what the denominations currently teach or not is beside the point. And about the denominations ever taught doctrinally this position is attainable. Protestants were at one point very strictly confessional unlike todays environment, additionally people then took their theologians such as Calvin, or Gill, or whoever else very very seriously. In fact I am in a denomination that is Calvinistic and is very old school with very little change from confessional beliefs and what the forefathers taught such as Calvin. My denomination is almost identical to the day it formed back in 1738 in Scotland. And I can tell you that people in my denomination believe that Michael was not a created angel but the glorified Christ leading His armies. I know Reformed Baptist Churches as well that teach it. So if you do not want to be "Classic" Protestant view then perhaps "Historical" Protestant view. AS Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan current minister of a Reformed Covenanter church said "Michael, that this was the term used to refer to Christ when He was leading His heavenly armies and such. It isn't that strange a view. For instance, it is Calvin's view that the Michael of Daniel's vision (and hence, the reference in Jude) is to Christ. It is Matthew Henry's view. It is the "classic" view, if I may be permitted to claim it. It has fallen on hard times, because the JW's claimed it and twist it, and so it has become the view of "cultists". But that should not deter us from a proper understanding of it, if it is true." -Mikhael, May 15, 2011 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the Cheerleader has a valid point. The quotes mentioned above are at times too vague to assert a direct equality. The equality had been asserted as discussed here but as that shows it was not a major, or classic, issue. Think of it this way, if an equality is asserted between Christ and Michael, then Christ must be asserted to be an angel. But the assertion that Christ is an angel has not had mainstream or classic following among Protestants. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And Sorry History, those quotes are not vague at all.. Michael = Christ and Christ is God in those quotes. If those quote are vague then I do not KNOW what is not vague for anything. Your final assertion is based on the assumption that Michael is a created angel and Christ is not. No where does the scriptures say or show Michael being created but plenty to show that He is Christ. -Mikhael, May 15, 2011 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the references you provided seem to come verbatim from this website. Is that so? History2007 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Never been to that site.. Where did I get the quotes.. I own all of those commentaries and I use the Geneva bible as my reading bible. The only quote that I did not have in a book was from John Wesley and that was provided by a pastor who had wesley's commentary. I also have quotes from Spurgeon, Matthew Poole, Jonathan Edwards and William Alexendar. Again, because I own all those commentaries.. Interesting that site seem to have some quotes I did not have such as Beza... -Mikhael (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So let us start with Calvin. Just above that passage on page 312 he says: "but it is better to understand Michael as the archangel", and hence distinguishes him from Christ. And that s just one place in a large amount of Calvin. But debating it that way would be "our interpretation" of a WP:Primary source. To establish Calvin's view, a WP:Secondary source needs to be found. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are quoting from.. I am on Page 312 and he no where talks about Michael.. He does say on page 368 "By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable, for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church. Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by the hand of his only begotten Son," Then on page 369 he states in full "The twelfth chapter commenced, as we stated in yesterday’s Lecture, with the angel’s prediction as to the future state of the Church after the manifestation of Christ It was to be subject to many miseries, and hence this passage would soothe the sorrow of Daniel, and of all the pious, as he still promises safety to the Church through the help of God. Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (ver. 28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect" and on page 370 it continues "people, he should exercise immense power, and he alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. Christ confirms the same assertion, as we just; now saw, in the 10th chapter of John. He says all his elect were given him by his father, and none of them should perish, because his father was greater than all; no one, says he, shall pluck my sheep out of my hand. My father, who gave them me, is greater than all; meaning, God possesses infinite power, and displays it for the safety of those whom he has chosen before the creation of the world, and he has committed it to me, or has deposited it in my hands. We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates Michael as the great prince." On page 371 Calvin states "By this expression the angel points out to us the great importance of the protection of Michael. He promises certain salvation to his elect people, as if he had said, although the church should be exposed to the greatest dangers, yet with respect to God himself, it should always be safe and victorious in all contests, because Michael should be superior to every enemy." The only other place I see Calvin talking about Michael is about Michael Servetus daring to appropriate this [Michael-Archangel] passage to himself on page 368. -Mikhael (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source for John Calvin, In His commentary on Jude 1:9 he states "What Jude relates as having been said by Michael, is found also in the book of Zechariah, "Let God chide (or check) thee, Satan." (Zechariah 3:2.)" Then turn to Calvin on Zechariah 3:2-4 Calvin states "We now see that he who is often said to be Jehovah is called an angel: the name therefore of Angel as well as of Jehovah, I doubt not, ought to be applied to the person of Christ, who is truly and really God, and at the same time a Mediator between the Father and the faithful: and hence he authoritatively commanded the angels who were present; for Christ was there, but with his hosts. While therefore the angels were standing by, ready to obey, he is said to have bidden them to strip the high priest of his mean garments." So Calvin is saying that Jude 1:9 mentions Michael by name and is introduced and is saying it is a quote from Zechariah 3:2 and Calvin states regarding Zechariah 3:2-4 that the angel which is the Angel Jehovah which is Michael in Jude 1:9 is none other then the person of Christ who is truly and really God. -Mikhael (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is your use of the word "so". That was the page number 368 and we must have different versions but that was the quote. But still it is a discussion between us based on a WP:Primary. We need a secondary NON-Calvin source about Calvin that says yes/no. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by my use of the word "so", can you clarify? So Calvin can not speak for himself as clear as "but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ". How can that be misinterpreted? What kind of secondary source are we talking about, Calvinistic ministers that say that Calvin believed it? -Mikhael (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You said: "so Calvin says". You need to say: Hans Hillerbrand, in the Encyclopedia of Protestantism, ISBN 0415924723 page X says that Calvin believed that. That is WP:Secondary. All you need to do is provide a value for X here. History2007 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, History2007. I don't think this user understands that "classic protestantism" never taught that Michael is Christ. He seems to think that just because a reformer thought that as their personal view that all their followers preached and taught this. No Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, or Moravian denomination I have looked into has ever taught Michael as being Christ. In Baptist and Presbyterian denominations I am unsure, but I know they do not teach it today. In fact, most Christian denominations would see this as heresy, since calling Christ an angel would deny his Godhood. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And I think you are missing the point that denominations believed what the theologians taught them before the modern era. You seem to be stuck on what denominations believe now which they altered their views since the liberal movement of the 20th century... Professor Williams of our seminary in Pittsburgh, professor of old testament said that "It was the historical position of most protestants that Michael was Christ." This is what he calls "Historical Theology" and what he teaches. I have been in Reformed Baptist churches and I have been in Reformed Presbyterian churches and they all taught Michael = Christ, without denying Christ as God. You keep claiming that Lutherans never believe this, but that is untrue since Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg in 1849 a lutheran scholar taught this position in his work "Die Offenbarung des heiliges Johannes" which is lutheran scholarship. And Charles Hodge a presbyterian in his Systematic Theology states that the "Angel of the Lord" is no other then Christ who is truly God. So saying that Christ an angel would not deny his godhood, it only does if you assume that "Angel" is always a created being. -Mikhael. (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I think some Christians such as JW hold that view, and at various times various preachers have hinted at or said all kids of things - and others have interpreted them in multiple was. In fact if you take any type of assertion (e.g. that St. Paul was right handed or left handed) some preachers have at some point given sermons or written about that. But as far as I can tell, as you said, this is not a mainstream Protestant belief, and it were the Protestant Encyclopedia would have probably said so. History2007 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly anyone in my circles even use such things such as Protestant Encyclopedia since they have been proved so wrong and bias so many times. Which is one reason why I did not have such as quote yet.. I do not even own such encyclopedias. They are considered untrustworthy.. In our churches we are taught to by-pass second hand research and go straight to the sources even if that source is 1800 years old. -Mikhael (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a blanket statement by a bible encyclopedia regarding early protestants, "“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the ‘child’ and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel .” — John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048." -Mikhael (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works, they actually like items like the Protestant Encyclopedia. I had seen the John A. Lees quote on that website we mentioned above, but given that it is an indirect quote from that website we cannot use it unless one of the three of us goes to the library, finds it and confirms it. Sorry, that is how WP:RS works. However, what we can say as of now is the reference that we know for sure, namely that sometime in the 2nd century there was some assertion of equality, but somewhat obscure. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I read that wiki can accept primary by itself at times.. Anyway.. Here is a direct source link to John Lees's quote in the international standard bible encyclopedia.. , So now it has been confirmed.. -Mikhael (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature by McClintock and Strong states: "...the ‘Sons of God’, or even in poetry, the ‘gods’ (Elohim), the ‘holy ones’, etc. are names which, in their full and proper sense, are applicable only to the Lord Jesus Christ. As He is ‘the Son of God’, so also is He the ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of the Lord." -Mikhael (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually that Bible study tools item confirms that, so I added it. Now FYI: some people may say that 1930 s "too old" is a reference - but I do not see that as a problem. But we have to say it was some early Protestants rather than classic, because it is not clear what classic means from that single reference.
In the process I noticed how much absolute junk had gathered in that section and removed some. There is a whole pile more unsourced that I will clean up later. So let us put this one to bed for now. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am okay with all that and happy with the term "some", but one other point, wouldn't it be proper to list those theologians now that we have a list of quotes from those theologians and a secondary source to back up that early protestants held such a view.. Nothing big perhaps, maybe a list like "such as Calvin, Beza, Gill, Spurgeon, etc" Other then that I believe we can put this one to bed... :) -Mikhael (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Especially since most of these denominations do not teach this now, it is good to see what reformers and theologians DID teach this. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, fine. But we still do not have specific 2ndary references for Calvin etc. So although we know some taught it, there is no exact refs as to which ones did or did not. But I am getting tired of this topic. So I will pass for now. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

POV "Jehovah's Witness belief"

The tone of this section seems like a POV argument for the belief it attempts to describe. Let's just describe the belief and the premises on which Witnesses base their belief.

The section below this, on the belief of other Adventists, says basically the same thing content-wise, without the POV language-- It doesn't claim to make any judgment "conclusively".

Couldn't these two sections be merged? "Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventist Christians both believe that Michael is another name for Jesus. Here are the texts on which they base this claim..." (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV use of "Catholic"

The article's current use of "Catholic" as a label for pre-Schism Christians is highly NPOV, especially when speaking of those in the east. That the term is unnecessary and awkward to the flow of the text suggests that it has been added for polemical purposes. I'm going to change to "early Christians" unless someone has strong objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


As a regular browser of talk pages I'd have to say that this article is woefully short of citations compared to others. Some articles on Wiki seem to be held to externally citing every single fact or opinion. This certainly cannot be said of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia

Hebrew Wikipedia claims that name Michael appears in the Hebrew bible where he had appeared before Abraham before his death. This seems like a discrepancy which should be fixed.

Q: in this page it says that Michael is the only archangel metioned in the bible (Dan.) In the general article on angels it states that both Gabriel and Michael are in Dan. I seem to remember reading about Gabriel in the book of Daniel last time i read it also. I dont have a bible with me at the moment so maybe someone else would like to clear this up.--Phoebus 22:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He is also mentioned in Apocalypse 12:7, "And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon." :Entered the reference. --Wetman 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

He said the HEBREW bible. The Apocalypse is not the Hebrew Bible. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, cool I wasn't logged in (how that happens I'll never know), so the summary is now incomprehensible. I was the one revising. --MichaelTinkler

Protestants would call him Michael or the Archangel Michael as an angel cannot be a saint, only a human can. --rmhermen

While I agree with Michael that we're probably better off leaving the "saint" out of the article title, I have to point out the Catholic/Orthodox rationale for calling an angel a saint. If we understand "saint" to simply mean "holy", as it does in most other languages, then unfallen angels who stand in the presence of God singing hymns and offering their prayers can surely be said to be holy. This broader understanding of the word "saint" is how Protestants understand the word when they say every Christian is a saint, so there shouldn't be a huge disagreement here. The more understandable difference is in using "Saint" as a title, and the whole canonization process. To me, it's much easier to understand why Protestants would be uncomfortable with recognizing a select few as capital-S saints. See also saint. --Wesley
While Protestant certainly dispute the idea behind capital S saints, saints does not just mean holy for all Protestant groups. Concepts like perserverance of the saints clearly only apply the term saints to fallen humans who have been redeemed. --rmhermen

Why is the name "Saint" still in the title, when it is agreed that we are talking about an angel, and not a human being who was canonized as a saint? RK 21:42, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, the Catholic usage of the word saint explains why an angel gets the title - the Wiki article on saints explains this very well.--Krupo 06:59, 2 May 2004 (UTC) (Roman Catholic usage trumps all at Wikipedia.)
It is the history of the term that dictates the significance of any influence. Anything else is secondary. Mike Hayes (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Straying off topic, but in that concept, when fallen humans are redeemed, are they not made holy in the process? Otherwise, what good does it do to be redeemed? Wesley 15:55 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

That all depends. What precisely do you mean by a "fallen human"? I have never heard this term. What precisely do you mean when say that one can be redeemed. I understand what Chrisitians mean when they say that someone was "saved"; is this the same thing? Finally, what do you mean by being "made holy". Do you mean like being out in a state of permanent grace, like Jesus or Buddah? I know that in Jewish thought, human beings are rarely called holy (or for that matter, unholy). Rather, their actions are considered holy or unholy. God, and the angels, OTOH, are considered inherently holy. RK 21:42, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've declared myself in favor of calling all saints by their names rather than by 'saint so-and-so'. --MichaelTinkler

I agree. RK 21:42, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is unworkable. Many saints are only known by first name. Take away saint and they are unrecognisable. BTW the formal name is St. Michael the Archangel and I have renamed the article to reflect it, to make it clear that he is not a saint in the canonised form but called saint as an honorary title. FearÉIREANN 23:08, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Problem - Jews and Muslims simply refer to Michael as "Michael". They never refer to him as a Saint; the same is true of the Bible itself. Also, many Protestant Christians also refer to the angel Michael simply as "Michael", or as "Michael the archangel". Only those familiar with Catholic or Orthodox naming terminology would be able to find this article with this name. I think we should name the article simply Michael, as it used to be called, or perhaps Michael (angel). Within the article, of course, we can continue to state that Catholics refer to this angel as St. Michael the Archangel. RK 23:40, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Calling the article Michael is unworkable as it would cause all sorts of disambigulation problems. Michael is not called Michael the angel. The term archangel is generally used to describe him. Michael the Archangel is the most recognised name, and using the most recognised term is standard wiki policy. I have no particular hangup on the saint honorific, though that is how he is referred in christian Litanies. But Michael the Archangel is internationally recognisable, Michael (angel) is not. FearÉIREANN 20:43, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good compromise. Thanks RK.

George is patron saint of england the article states michael is that is false —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Isn't it Gabriel who blows the trumpet on Judgement Day?

A trope such as this has a history in literature and representation, which is what makes it interesting to the rest of us. Anyone care to trace this development? Tuba mirum spargens sonum etc etc?--Wetman 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael, one of the chief Princes, came to help me;........and there is none that holds with me in these things, but Michael your prince.[Dan.10:13,21]. For some, it is almost impossible to believe that this could refer to our Lord JESUS CHRIST! Michael means, One like GOD! He has many, many names and just as Satan is the prince of evil, so JESUS is the prince of life. In Daniel He is also called "Messiah" the prince [9:25]. While Satan always wants to exalt himself, CHRIST is the opposite, He accepts the lowliest names and positions. in Daniel 11:22 JESUS is also called the prince of the covenant. In John 12:31 Satan is called the prince of this world.

In Revelation 1:5 it says: "And from JESUS CHRIST, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood." While he humbles Himself into the dust and took our place, He elevates us to Kings and Priests [v.6; 5:10; 1.Peter 2:9]. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Councilor, The mighty GOD, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." [Isa.9:6].

Rolf Vaessen

—Thank you for sharing: there's always time to devote a moment to a sermonette at Wikipedia. --Wetman 14:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Archangel Michael, Nom De Plume"

"Archangel Michael is a Nom de plume of a prominent Messianic believer in Messiah Yeshua." Whether or not this statement is "true", it contains no information and has been removed here for improvement. --Wetman 16:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I went ahead and added the information from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, but couldn't find a translation of one line:

militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives

Can somebody get translation of that? My Latin ability is limited to liturgical phrases. Text was removed, nevermind. Done, thank you.-- Essjay · Talk 08:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, I moved it to make better context when I translated it as you asked: "Medieval Christians considered St. Michael as the symbol or emblem of the Church Militant and as the patron saint of soldiers, in the Roman Catholic liturgy, Princeps militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives ("Prince of the celestial army whom the city of angels honor"). " --Wetman 14:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you did; it was late and I didn't catch the change to the top. Honestly, it wouldn't have bothered me to remove the text; I was just keeping the CE text together. I'm glad you got to the translation so fast. Thanks for the clarification. -- Essjay · Talk 04:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The term "Church Militant" is not a correct translation. The meaning of "militiae celestis" refers to Michael's army of angels-heavenly warriors who fought the fallen angels. "Church Militant" is the part of the Roman Catholic Church membership that are still struggling here on earth,ie, living human beings. The other two parts refer to the saved dead: the "Church Triumphant", who are those who died and are in heaven, and the "Church Suffering", who are those souls still in purgatory. See the current Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Wikipedia article on the term. Further medieval Christians regarded a number of human saints as military patrons, most notable being St. George. The fact that there were other military patron saints is already mentioned in the article. The Latin phrase doesn't seem to add anything new. Deleted.

Michael in the Book of Judges

Sorry, but the captain of the host of the Lord is a pre-incarnate showing of the Lord Jesus Christ, who came in the form of a man. Verse 14 says that Joshua worshipped him. Michael is a created being, Jesus is not because he is God, and God alone is worthy to recieve all the praise. The holy angels refuse to be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, "Worship God!", so if Micahel was the captain of the Lord's host, and he did recieve the worship for himself, then that means that he was probably Satan in disguise and God is a liar and a trickster for sending his greatest adversary to Joshua. But God is not a liar, so the Commander Of The Lord's army is Jesus Christ in as pre-incarnate appearance(theophany/Christophany).

The word "worship" appears to be an interpolation of the KJV. It's in neither the Masroetic[1] nor the Septuagint[2]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
But only God can make a ground holy.And since the Father and Spirit are invisible to man, we are left with only one option: It was God the Son.
You mean to say that God cannot sanctify a place while working through an agent? Or even without being physically present? What an odd idea. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
God's Agent is Christ Jesus. And Jesus Christ is God, so God was physically present.
I shouldn't have to point out that this is circular reasoning, but I will anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You all must also remeber that the word "worship" has changed in meaning over the years. To "worship" did not always mean to have adoration for (adoration is for God alone). Veneration is the word used today to honor angels and saints, but the word worship or praise used to be used, as it did not mean glory only given to God. Infact, in England today, Ministers of Government are given the title "Your Worship" because they are held in high esteem and honored. It did not mean people "worship" them in the sense the word means today. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which translation?

The article doesn't mention which translation is used for the passage of Joshua. --BHC 10:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Michael's power comes from God. As God's power was not made but has always existed it is a theophany. Michael is therefore also a theophany - or to be specific his power is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Saint as Adjective

It is tempting to see the word, Saint, as applied to Michael the Archangel, as originating in the adjective "sanctus," or holy. Latin being the language of the Church, the translations into the vernacular might then have taken the word as Saint. This practice would have been even more prevalent in languages derived from Latin, in one form or another. For example, in French, the words, "saint Michel" would mean holy Michael, although the title Saint Michel is the one actually used; consequently, the Chivalric order which named itself after Saint Michel gave its name to the area of Paris which it occupied, finally giving us the Boulevard Saint Michel and the famous statue depicted in the article.--PeadarMaguidhir 20:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

saint is an adjective, meaning holy. When we say saint before any name it means the person or being is "holy". He is also a "Saint" (with a capital S) according to the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran liturgical calenders. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about Reiki -

I have a friend whom practices Reiki. What are the dangers in Reiki in respect to calling on archangels such as Michael. In respect to Christianity and the bible, does this practice violate the worshiping of other Gods? I have heard of Christian healing practices. Would a Christian practice use the Holy Spirit? Would it be safer? Any insight into any of these?

This is not the place for this discussion. Feel free to email me if you'd like a traditional Christian viewpoint. If you use that form while not logged in, please remember to give your email address in the body of the message so I can reply. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing needed

Uncritical editors are permitting material like the following to filter into this article:

  • "Most consider Michael, by his humble and honorable nature, to be the personal adversary of Lucifer, no matter if they consider Lucifer, Samael and/or Satan to be the same being." Unsourced pious effusion without hard content. "Most" do not consider anything of the kind. Michael and Satan are already better covered elsewhere in this article.
  • "One legend tells that the Cherubim were formed from the tears Michael shed over the sins of the faithful." Unsourced pious effusion. This would be of some interest if the first appearance of this assertion could be instanced.
  • "Michael is also said to be the patron saint of loners and those who find themselves oppressed. ". A touching confession, but not noted anywhere.

The article has become a jumble of modern cult and historical development, presented at haphazard without distinctions. The development of the Christian cult of Michael is worthy of a specific section, apart from contemporary cult and titles. --Wetman 13:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Shrines of St. Michael

There are certainly thousands of cathedrals, parishes, chapels and shrines named for this archangel worldwide. Where are we drawing the line for notability? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Either a large portion of this article was plaugurized (forgive my horrid spelling, tis late here) or we were ripped off by the catholic encyclopedia:

It would have been natural to St. Michael, the champion of the Jewish people, to be the champion also of Christians, giving victory in war to his clients. The early Christians, however, regarded some of the martyrs as their military patrons: St. George, St. Theodore, St. Demetrius, St. Sergius, St. Procopius, St. Mercurius, etc.; but to St. Michael they gave the care of their sick. At the place where he was first venerated, in Phrygia, his prestige as angelic healer obscured his interposition in military affairs. It was from early times the centre of the true cult of the holy angels, particularly of St. Michael. Tradition relates that St. Michael in the earliest ages caused a medicinal spring to spout at Chairotopa near Colossae, where all the sick who bathed there, invoking the Blessed Trinity and St. Michael, were cured.

         --- from [The Catholic Encyclopedia]

It continues all the way through the sentance "In some parishes (Isle of Skye) they had a procession on this day and baked a cake, called St. Michael's bannock.", the last on the linked page. Kuronue 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see above someone "added information from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia" -- apparently they added the exact wording from the encyclopedia, which is very much copyrighted. Kuronue 00:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is very much public domain, and text from it may be freely used. We generally don't want to do that here because that work is written with a strongly Roman Catholic POV, but there's no legal bar to it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Both Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 and Catholic Encyclopedia are in the public domain and have furnished the jumping-off point for thousands of Wikipedia articles, in which further editing has quite often entirely superceded the original wording. --Wetman 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that. Cool. Kuronue 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I removed the following since it has no basis in fact or legend as to the Biblical origination of St. Michael:

The figure of Michael probably originated in Chaldaea as a protective god or spirit. Accepted by the Jews, he emerged as...

It needs a citation if you're going to say that the Jews took a pagan idol and made him into an Archangel. Jtpaladin 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael: affirmation or question?

"Micha-El" means "Who is like God". But should there be a question mark after it - in other words, is this a comparison ("he is the same as God") or a rhetorical question ("Who is like God? No one..."). Can any Hebrew scholar help. Obviously I am not disinterested ;-) Nick Michael 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Latin equivalent "Quis ut deus" implies a question (or it would have been "qui ut deus"). Obviously Latin is not Hebrew, but I that at least points to the question form going back some ways. Mlouns 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mlouns. Disappointed...! Nick Michael 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Also the legend of the name's origin as the battle-cry of the loyal angels suggests it's a question, albeit a rhetorical one. (The obvious answer is "no one", contra Satan's self-exaltation.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If its literal meaning is "El's likeness", how can it be a question? What kind of question is "El's likeness?"?

WikiProject Rating

I have added a rating of "B-Class" to this article. There are good graphics/pictures throughout, the article is divided into readable sub-sections, has appropriate wikilinks, and has an extensive bibliography. However, much of the material was cut-and-pasted directly from Catholic Encyclopedia, and reflects the POV and sometimes awkward prose of that resource. Futher, this article would benefit greatly from in-text citations rather than a Bibliography. Pastordavid 17:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Saint Michael appearing to Constantine and and Pope Gregory the Great's renaming Hadrian's Mausoleum after him is said twice. I don't have the time or energy to correct that or even log in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Christian Apocrypha?

One section in the Christian tradition part of this article mentions the Apocalypse of Moses as a source from the Christian Apocrypha. I do not believe this is part of the Apocrypha in any sense of the word. Maybe this part should be deleted? Tjtenor2 15:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is in the Apocrypha. There are two Apocryphas, the catholic understanding and the protestant understanding. Protestants use the term to reffer to books the Catholics have in their biblical cannon that are not in the protestant translations of the bible. Catholics use the term to reffer to other books that are considered important but are not in their bible, such as the Apocalypse of Moses, Infant Gospels, etc. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd, probably offensive placement of St. Michael picture

Why is there a picture of a St. Michael statue in the Islamic section? Ichormosquito 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought as well when cruising the article. I have moved the image down to the Literature section near a spot in the text that discusses Michael's fight with Satan's armies etc etc, which matches the image anyway. Ryoutou 08:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Several sections probably non-notable and fancruft

The sections Literature and popular culture, Film and Television, and Comics seem to contain material that doesn't meet notability standards and could qualify as cruft to some.

I didn't delete it outright because I felt some of the material might be salvageable and wanted to give other maintainers a chance to defend its inclusion. How do others feel about the this material, specifically under the article Michael (archangel)? As an example, it seems covering topics such as a movie are handily dealt with by the disambiguation page.

Am I being fair in suggesting exclusion of this material or can consensus determine inclusion per Wiki is not paper? Mindlurker 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am all for deleting these sections marked as non-notable. Even the Paradise Lost mention is not very notable, since it essentially adds nothing new. I may well delete it all within a few days if I don't hear an outcry. Mlouns 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the material. I've had the notability tags on there for quite some time now. It doesn't seem to meet the requirements for inclusion of fiction material. I also feel that nobody coming to this page - specifically tagged (Archangel) - is looking for that kind of material. Brief mentions of characters in a plot-line of fiction stories doesn't seem encyclopedic. Mindlurker 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Depending on interpretation, isn't his original appearance in a work of fiction? And certain works on Wiki point to Michael as a character. While he's not utilized as often as lets say Lucifer, he's still a fictional character. Why have links only one way, and not the other? I'd think his appearances in fiction are rare enough that a brief on him is warranted. Also if outright fiction is being removed, you ought to remove the Uranti book as well, as it's also a non-religious text.Brinlong (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference between references from the Bible or other ancient traditions and later pop culture is most emphatically not that one is presumed to be real and the other is fiction. (Otherwise, all mythology and literature entries in wikipedia would evaporate.) It is that one is an influential source for a long-lasting idea, whereas the other is ephemeral and derivative with no real impact. In this article as it was a few months back, the laundry list of any and all appearances of St. Michael in fiction were neither rare nor notable. We had minor video games and casual TV mentions, for gosh sakes. They were taking over the article without adding anything useful to an understanding of St. Michael. Mlouns (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish" Tradition

Does it seem odd to anyone that the Jewish Tradition section quotes from the NRSV? (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really; since it's the same Tanakh (at least in most Protestant Bibles--Catholics and Orthodox consider 9 extra books to be canon), I imagine it's a lot less hassle just to use a widely-available edition of it when rendering the scripture into English. Might as well ask "does it seem odd that Jews use the chapter-and-verse notation invented by St. Jerome?" Uh, no, it doesn't, because it's convenient. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


is michael reconized in islam at all also is there a hierarchy among the three archangels michael gabriel and raphael--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Michael is recognized in Islam. The hiearchy depends on religion, and some (like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians) beleive in 7 archangels. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms attributed to St. Michael the archangel in medieval England

Argent, a cross pommee Gules

Here are the old attributed arms of St. Michael, if it's of interest... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont realy agree with the begining of this Article. He is not the Patron of England, but of Cornwell, so only a region in England. Similer he is the patron of Petersburg too, but not of Russia.

Sry for the bad spelling, I am a russian. Just wanted to help you improve this Article.

Greetz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Article subject confusion

This article is explicitly names Michael (Archangel). However it includes a wealth of information on St.Michael who is believed to be a Patron saint! These are not one and the same, so I would suggest separating the two and creating a new article.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They, in fact, are one and the same. The article is correct as is. -- Secisek (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, the article starts to say so from Michael_(archangel)#Christian_tradition...and ends with Michael_(archangel)#Islam--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about one patron and archangel. He is important to all of the abrahamic faiths, but he is still the same traditional figure. -- Secisek (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that St.Michael is important to Christianity, but the article is about an archangel, and this is a completely different concept to a saint. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See for example the confusion this creates with statements like "It would have been natural to St. Michael, the champion of the Jewish people", because St. Michael was not and is not a champion of the Jewish people, but the 8th ranking archangel charged with the watch over the nation of Israel.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to fully understand the concept of saint as it is discharged here. The usage is correct and could be backed by more citations than would be practical. While this is 100 years old and biased toward the Roman view, [this article] explains the usage. I hope this helps you. -- Secisek (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article you pointed me to does not mention anything outside of Christianity, so why do you think this article needs to be linked to Judaism at all? Moreover, since the definitions of Christian saints and Jewish angels are very different (there are no saints in Judaism), it is abundantly clear that two different subjects have been lumped into one article by name association alone--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with current usage, you are mistaken. The article needs to cover all POVs, not just a Jewish one. -- Secisek (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Firstly the Britannica is not an authority of Biblical analysis, particularly in a two paragraph snippet. Secondly, "and early in the history of the Christian church he came to be regarded as helper of the church’s armies against the heathen.", one of the heathen being Jews for refusing to convert! And thirdly, "He holds the secret of the mighty “word” by the utterance of which God created heaven and earth and was “the angel who spoke to [Moses] on Mount Sinai” (Acts 7:38)." is utterly counter to what Judaism holds to be true about Moses. Britannica therefore can not be used a neutral, or even reliable source in this case. The persona of Michael the archangel had underwent a substantial transformation in Christian interpretation and doctrine to the point of being unrecognisable, or all too recognisable since Judaism has no image for it, and this is best reflected by separate articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to do what you suggest would almost certainly be reverted by consensus. I don't wish to argue further with anyone who declares that "Britannica therefore can not be used a neutral, or even reliable source". My last bit of advice is that you establish broad consensus before making such radical changes that some editors may even assume to be bad faith vandalism. This is one case where I would not suggest being bold. -- Secisek (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware consensus is reached by discussion backed up by verifiable sources, not voting or labelling other editors. Britannica itself had on numerous occasions been found to be in error, by Wikipedia editors in fact, so what I propose is not some strange new concept.
What I would like to you to explain to me, is how a metaphysical entity from the Hebrew Bible became a corporeal saint, and how the two are one and the same. I simply acknowledge that the Christian conception is different, and therefore separate articles are needed. In fact there is an article Michael which states that "The Archangel Michael, referred to later in the Bible (Daniel 12 verse 1), is considered a saint by the Roman Catholic Church.", so why not rename the article Michael (archangel) to Michael (saint)? After all, that is the where it is redirected from Saint Michael.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of Christianity doesn't make sense, like how you get three days between Friday and Sunday. The idea of an angel being canonized doesn't seem all that strange. If it's inaccurate to refer to him as a saint when talking about the Jewish tradition, by all means, replace "Saint" with "Angel" in those sections, but it's also accurate to call him a saint when referring to Christian traditions. Kuronue | Talk 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All the other saints I'd heard of were humans who'd been canonized, as opposed to angels whose existence predated humanity. Michael is an odd exception here, likely a fusion of separate mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


If there is a problem with the contradictory statements, this is not the reason to delete the sourced edit because the contradiction is not appreciated, right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith. Don't fret, you two aren't the only editors here. FWIW, I think the sentence flow is bad (we're already talking about it being in the bible, don't need to clarify twice) but the information should be included (because it's also from the bible, which is what the section is about). Kuronue | Talk 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section in question does not say "Michael and the devil had it out and this citation from the bible proves it". It states "the book of Jude claims Michael and the devil had it out and you can read the account in this citation". Unless you can contradict that the book of Jude contains the stated story, you can't contradict the claim. Why we are arguing minutia when the article is such poor shape to begin with is beyond me. --Secisek (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should someone go to a citation if you are paraphrasing the text? Just quote the text so it does not sound like OR. The book of Jude can not "claim" anything! Its a textual record, so either it has the text or it does not. The reason I added the second reference is the logical contradiction. If God said that no one knew where Moses was busied, how could there be Michael and the devil over Moses' grave?! That is the contradiction.
In this case minutia is important. If the article can't get the basic premise for its subject right, what point is there in writing the rest?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation is not supporting a factual claim about St. Michael. It is supporting a textual claim about the book of Jude. You want to introduce a counter-claim that the book of Jude is not factual, but no such claim has been made here. You seem to understand the argument here. -- Secisek (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly now the word "claim" has been removed, so the text is factual. However, the text in Jude is still contradicted by the earlier statement in Genesis. Of course that statement in Genesis is not directly relevant to the subject of the article, Michael, but it is relevant in terms of understanding the claimed role of Michael in Jude, in the context of the event and location, that is the burial and grave of Moses, which is clearly stated to have been hidden by God. This, is what footnotes are for!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I cut and pasted it here:

Is this not so? Does Jude 9 not say this? It listed as one of the times St. Michael is mentioned in the Christian scripture. What is there to dispute here? -- Secisek (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point, and I suspect you know it. The statement made in Genesis pre-dates that of Jude by over a thousand years, and Michael is not mentioned in Genesis. It seems to me this is a fairly valid information to present to the reader should they have actually read the last chapter of Genesis and wonder where Michael came from, although as a footnote.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong to suspect that I "know it". In fact, you're losing me here. If St Michael is not mentioned in the Genesis story, how is it relavent in this section? Because it mentions Moses? Mel Brooks has a story about Moses that contradicts the story about Michael in Jude as well, but it is not relevent to this section of the article.

If the passage were cited to back an alleged "fact" about "the life" of Michael, yes, a counter-claim would be of value. As it is, the citation backs the appearence of Michael in a non-historical, legendary account where he does appear. To offer a counter-citation "disproving" the reality of the legend borders on the ridculious, all the more so when one uses another legendary story to do so. -- Secisek (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is because Michael is not mentioned in Genesis during Moses' burial that it is relevant!
"the citation backs the appearence of Michael in a non-historical, legendary account where he does appear" - but that is not what it says, does it?
What it says, is that "In the Epistle of Jude of the New Testament in verse 9, Michael disputes with the Devil over the body of Moses." This is a historical and far from legendary account since it places the event immediately on Moses' passing (body) in Genesis, which is dated in Judaism, and is not considered "legendary" in Judaism, but factual. This is just another reason I suggested the article is written with a POV which is fairly narrow for a reference work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are on the point of spotting the crux of the disagreement. Do you, in fact, believe it possible to write an historical account of the exploits of a supernatural being? That is what I am gathering from your last comment. -- Secisek (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not gathering anything, its done in this article!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is your expertise, in fact, in the Jewish view of Michael? Why don't you adopt that section and I'll take the Christian. Let's rewrite and cite as much as possible and see if we cant get this with in striking distance of GA? -- Secisek (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't make that commitment as I am already committed to other projects. However, I would like to see this article make sense. I think you appreciate the position I presented. I will likely return when I have more time.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, both of you calm down a little bit; remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text, and therefore we're supposed to be reporting on what the text says, even if it doesn't sound good for one religion or another. (am I right in supposing that the crux of much of the debate on this page is that we have a Christian, a Jew, and a neopagan [myself] editing an article on a figure prominent in two of those religions and occasionally mentioned in the third, all in different contexts?) Kuronue | Talk 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not e to me.
I'd like the subject of the article defined in something other then a religious organisation's mission statement terms
I'd like the subject to start at A and progress to Z in some sort of logical fashion
I'd like statements to be cited and sourced from verifiable sources
Seems like the usual Wikipedia stuff to me
I do not think that race, faith or country of origin shoudl have anything to do with the article content--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If I'm wrong, forgive my intrusion, I just came here and saw Judaism this, Christianity that, and a debate about the bible. I don't really understand why we can't include all the disputed information - nobody's saying any of it is WRONG, just that it should belong in a spinoff article or a seperate article altogether, and I don't feel that any of it (Micheal as a saint, bible disputes) are off topic. I don't understand why there's been such a huge fight over this relatively minor stuff so I assumed personal religions were involved. Kuronue | Talk 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
ETA: I also agree that race, faith, et cetera shouldn't be involved, but that doesn't mean they never are. Kuronue | Talk 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think religious issues are playing a big part here. I can agree:

  • I'd like the subject of the article defined in something other then a religious organisation's mission statement terms
  • I'd like the subject to start at A and progress to Z in some sort of logical fashion
  • I'd like statements to be cited and sourced from verifiable sources

The problem seems to be that there are a number of traditions about Michael and, as always, some contradict. The right thing to do is to report each tadition and cite them per WP:RS. I really can't get over here right away either, but there seem to be many editors involved here. I'll do what I can. -- Secisek (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where there exist shared concepts between groups, the convention in Wikipedia and outside of it, is to process them in chronological order, and to provide an introduction to the subject which adopts a definition that is inclusive and neutral.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Still with you so far...--Secisek (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael, One of three visited Abraham

In the Rabbinic traditions section it is said:

Jewish legend also states Michael to be one of the three "men" who visited Abraham.

I would like to have the refrence for this sentence. Who are the two others? Please explain if there is any citation.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This Sentence seems incorrect, as mentioned in Jewish Encyclopedia, This is the Moslem and Arab Legend that knows Michael as one of three mens visited Abraham! Please provide any Jewish related refrence claimed this or we can edit this sentence!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, if Michael is Christ according section above on the "Classic Protestant View", or No, if Michael is just a created heavenly being. The Massorete scribes have notes in the margins of Hebrew mss. called the Massorah, in which they record alterations and various readings of the text. Genesis 18:3 is the first of 134 places in which the scribes deliberately changed the reading “YHVH” to “Adonai”-“my Lord”. The passage reads without the Massorete's alternation as "“YHVH appeared to him… and, behold, three persons stood by him… (“YHVH” is the name of three Persons!), (These three persons (Heb. “Enashim”, from “Enosh”-“man”or “person”) were visible and Abraham saw them. They were on the earth and near his tent door, so he ran to meet them and bowed down before them. This is an act of worship, which is confirmed by his following address: And when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground… ... And said, YHVH, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray you, from thy servant”. Notice first the address of Abraham starts with The Name, “YHVH”. Abraham recognizes that YHVH has come to him in flesh and utters The Most Holy Name. Again, Classic Protestant and particularly Reformed View Here.. YHVH manifested himself as the Trinity - 3 in 1 to Abraham, each person in the Godhead holds the name YHVH as one God and Abraham worshiped them. So if this position is held, then yes Michael being Christ the second person of the Trinity was one of the three persons who visited Abraham but if Michael is not Christ and is a separate created Heavenly being then no Michael was not one who visited Abraham. -Mikhael, May 6, 2011 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish people, you must remember, do not teach that Micahel is the messiah in heavenly form. So according to Jewish legend and tradition, Michael is not the messiah. And as stated in the discussion at the top of the page, it has not been decided that the classic protestant view that Michael is Christ. Infact, it is most likely not. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Why is the bit in the lead about his being mentioned by name in Daniel disputed? Immediately after that, it goes on to discuss where he is mentioned, and in all the translations I have, he is in fact mentioned by name in Daniel. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Shrine doesn't mean named for

Being named after a saint doesn't make the church a shrine. It needs to have a relic, be a place of pilgramage, that sort of thing. See Shrine. I'm removing those places that are simply named after St. Michael. Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael in Aramaic

What is Michael's name in Aramaic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling "Michael" in Arabic

I notice that Michael is misspelled in the Arabic here. It should not be with a kha, but rather with a kaf. Please correct. yerubal 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


I should append a comment here. What I said (Michael in Arabic is with kaf) applies to the Michael that appears in the Qur'an. Obviously, if a Russian person wants his name transliterated/transcribed in Arabic, a kha might be appropriate. But, for the archangel, definitely a kaf and not a kha, so this should be corrected. yerubal 23:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC) And two more comments: a) I don't know what the practice is in Arab culture, so the only thing that I know for sure is what is in the Qur'an, and there it's a kaf. b) I notice that I clumsily wrote these comments after someone's question about Aramaic. Don't know what I can do about that. yerubal 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerubal (talkcontribs)

It has to do with the way you formatted the header, I have fixed it so that "Michael in Arabic" is now a separate header. I'm afraid I know nothing about it though, just wiki-editing † Herzleid † (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry

I have read of a few notable cases where Saint Michael was invoked in the Church's battle against Freemasonry. It would be interesting if relevant sources could be gathered on this topic. ADM (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Film, TV and pop culture

The section on film and TV seems largely unsourced. How is one to know if any of that section is true and for real. Today someone just typed something and I had to revert it because it was totally unsourced. What if someone just invents some of these film stories and types them here? Are Wikipedia editors supposed to go and see these films and check them for accuracy? Of course not. A few of these have Wikipages that say that the Archangel is a character in the film, but others do not. But Wikipedia can not be used as a source for Wikipedia, so sources are needed. Unless there are references for these items, they need to be removed in a few days. And by and large I wonder what the benefit of the fact that some movie includes an angel is to the Wikipedia reader... but that is another story. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to parts of the literature statements there. I added a reference to Milton, but the others have no sources at all. I added citation needed flags and if no sources are added in several days they must go, for it is not clear if someone has added them as a prank. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange mix

Why are Christian artworks and architecture used to illustrate the sections relating to Jewish belief? It's an incongruous mix. (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki-art. Images often get added by different people where ever there is space. And Wikimedia has more Christian art than others, so they just get added almost randomly. It would be almost futile to try to play with that in my opinion. History2007 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints (Mormon)

There should be a section on the official teachings of the Angel Michael by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as they believe that Michael is the heavenly form of Adam from the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There used to be something like that, but I am not sure what happened. History2007 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I remember there once being a section on it. I think it is important to include, as it is very different than most other Christian views. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of Michael's name confusion

When reading the part about the meaning of Michael's name, the reference to some tradition about the rhetorical question "who is like God?" is very confusing. How does this pertain to the name at all? It doesn't seem to have any connection whatsoever. << Fyrefly (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if nobody else sees how the reference has any relevance to the article either, then I've a good mind to remove it and will be doing so soon. << Fyrefly (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It's explaining the meaning of the name; I fail to see how it could be irrelevant. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Carl. It should stay. Quis ut Deus is used in artistic renditions on his shield as he overpowers Satan (see the image therein), and appears on the Scapular of St. Michael, e.g. please see: John F. Sullivan, 2009 The Externals of the Catholic Church ISBN 1113714085 page 202. History2007 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The first part of the sentence explains his name, certainly. The rest of the sentence, though, is completely confusing. Is it trying to say that the name 'Michael' is posed as a question to imply that no one is like god? If it's not going to be removed, it at least needs to be expanded so that it makes sense. << Fyrefly (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, let us do this. Which one of these makes it clear? this or thisone? Then we will clarify based on one or both. These references need to go in anyway, so please add it in a way that helps you see it as clear. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. It does seem clear now, but for some reason on first reading it didn't seem to make sense. I don't see any reason to change it now. << Fyrefly (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I added a ref link and a clarification anyway, so it will be clear to others in the future. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I gave it my best shot as well. The part where I translated each part of the name should probably be formatted better. Hopefully as a whole it's clearer now. << Fyrefly (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Announced to the Virgin Mary her impending death

Can the passage "St Michael is also said to have announced to the Virgin Mary her impending death, declaring himself to be 'Great and Wonderful.'" be correct? Catholics believe Mary was taken up to heaven on the feast of the Assumption don't they?

See the article Dormition of the Theotokos for some discussion of the fine distinctions drawn about this. As far as Michael's announcement of her death, this is one of the statements that is in need of documentation. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we delete this then? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Done, and there are other unsourced and questionable items floating there. History2007 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

I am trying to convince myself not to delete chuncks of text from here because they are questionable and unsourced, but there are just too many of them. I added a few unsourced tags, but unless someone has a definite plan to spend energy on it, and spends the effort on adding sources, a lot of it needs to be trimmed and the parts for which sources can be found kept. History2007 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at this page... Just let me know if I cut too deeply... I will try to slice nice. ~Sharpens blade on grinding wheel~ - Jasonasosa (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you made good edits. I also removed more unsourced items, but still quite a messy page. Needs more work, and more trimming. There is just too much junk floating around in these pages, the page on The Baptist is even worse, with glaring errors, if you see my comments there... History2007 (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way Jason, I searched and some of the material in the early Christianity section had come verbatim from the Cath encyclopedia, so I added that as a source, after some clean up. The apparitions, however, are yet uncertain. History2007 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The page is looking a lot better. This was pretty good teamwork here. I understood we had to make some pretty deep cuts. I'm glad we were able to make a go of it. I like how you honed down the Scriptural references section, its exactly how I think it should be. That whole entire Joshua Book section was just out of control. Great work on making it right. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, there is still about another day of work, then we can probably stop. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that sometimes it's a pain, but you really should comment on what your editing in the Help:Edit summary. You've made a lot of changes and have not specified what you've done. That is the only thing I completely disagree with. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I will give it some thought... History2007 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As you are giving it some thought, please read: Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. We are making major changes to this article, which includes heavy deletions, and It's Not Cricket to leave an edit summary blank. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I never played cricket... anyway, maybe you should just fix the legends/apparitions section yourself, add refs etc. That way it will have summaries too. If it has no refs, it has to get deleted anyway. Thanks and good luck. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Heavily biased

The first thing to do should be to revert this article (as I already had done, and History2007 illegally reverted it) to the last edition before the problems described next.

Would be easier simply to ask the readers why of this, which actually, as everyone knows, it’s done in the end of all articles of Wikipedia! So actually it is not necessary anyone or me point out this (all readers promptly realize this). However I will make at least some portentous examples: I will not even deepen in the blatant tendentious text. Thus let’s first take a look in the leading picture, it is a picture with a caption, title if you prefer, saying "Saint Michael". Well what inappropriate to an article that should supposedly to have a neutral point of view. In fact the image even explicitly displays that in the painting. Shouldn’t this image more suitable in articles like Saint Michael (catholic) or other of this kind, or be replaced by a neutral one without this kind of caption? Obviously yes. Ok a little about the last editions of these two users: History2007 and Jasonasosa. The first one made a lot of editions without providing a summary, therefore a violation and more than enough to immediate reversion. The second user, as well as the first one, made several cleanups that I myself would have partly done, so what was the problem? The problem it is that they chose what they wanted to keep according to their preferences. It was a heavily biased edition (I think that this cannot be said a cleanup, but rather a planned censure would be a better description).

Look History2007 and Jasonasosa, as I said, I don’t disapprove entirely your editions. If you had seriously regarded my licit reversion (as was clearly explained in my summary), you now would be restarting your editions, but this time doing an unbiased cleanup. I.e. you indistinctly would provide references to the whole content and not only to that you have faith. It is all. By now I will allow your reversion, but still it is necessary to find an unbiased content to this article (actually, in this aspect, the article was better before your editions). Academictask (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you say "illegally reverted it"? Excuse me? Excuse me? The revert was fully valid based on Wikipedia editing protocols. I am not detecting an awareness of Wiki-procedures in your statements. Your bold edit destroyed significant referenced content based on WP:RS sources and was validly reverted based on WP:BRD. That can not be questioned. That is a clear, clear fact. Believe me, I have done a few edits before, I know the procedures.
Now regarding your criticism in the edit summary, apart from criticism it had no specific substance. Now please do allow me to break the news to you gently here: this article is about an angel not about a microprocessor. It discusses religious texts such as the Bible. It does not even once refer to Maxwell's equations, as it should not. Instead it has significant references to scripture, which is the basis of the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity in this specific angel. How a statement arrived in an article and the brevity or lack of an edit summary is not a reason for reversion of the text, if the content is validly supported by WP:RS and WP:V. What matters is the quality of the content. Period. I have seen no specific assertions on your part apart from a criticism of the images. The images are the artistic masterpieces that reflect teachings. Again, this is a religious article not an article on physics. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will go direct to the main point, because the remainders are pointless discussions where I can technically argue here e you there. Trust me History2007, I totally respect your opinion and your believes, but nothing of you just said changes the issues described by me. I rest my case. Academictask (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I am yet to see a specific definition of "your case". But now that you have rested it, may it rest in peace. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, no personal attacks (typical). Comment only on content and use a moderate language, the only things that will rest are sneak edits, such as the authoritarian ones made without summaries and biased edits.Academictask (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Not to jump into the middle of a fray, but I felt to weigh in as I have been watching these changes progress. I reviewed both the previous version (Oct 29, 2011) and the current version and believe the current version to have a bit less bias than the original. The majority of the article is focused on the character identified as Michael the Archangel. The current version isolates the beliefs of different religions into their own section with their own heading, while information outside of these areas provides more of a general overview. For example, the article does not refer to him as St. Michael throughout the article, though many religions refer to him as such. This is similar to how it was presented in the previous version, however there is more of an isolated breakdown now. I believe the article is formatted much better now. As far as the image is concerned, it's title has not changed. I assume that is the title the artwork was given by its creator.
I feel it necessary to vouch for the character of History2007. I have had the opportunity to run into History2007 in the past and have found him (I'm assuming) to be a good editor. He is thorough in his work, and respectful of others opinions and beliefs. Although I am sure that he has his own beliefs, from what I have experienced he is for the most part an unbiased editor.
Perhaps the root of this issue is that the information concerning Islam or the Bahá'í faith was removed. The Islam section was removed as it did not have any references, and I assume that the Bahá'í faith section was removed for a similar issue. The Bahá'í section had one reference of a single individuals written work on his view. Perhaps if you could find references for the beliefs that you are concerned about this whole thing could be remedied. If this is the issue at hand, it would be helpful for others to understand your concerns if you expressed it in a more specific manner as such. Otherwise I guess you have rested your case.
Not that my opinion is very important in this situation, but I felt I would at least share my thoughts on the issue. Lothimos (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually your views do provide details Lothimos and are hence appreciated. As I had said a few months ago, I did not even want to work on this article that much, but it was mostly unsourced and unkempt. After a few months of citation needed flags, statements need to be removed as WP:OR and a few months had passed. The Quran section is referenced now. I do not know what the Bahá'í believe on the subject but what there was came from a modern writer I think, not the original Bahá'í founders. In any case, I will leave a message for the Bahá'í expert in Wikipedia to see if the Bahá'í actually have "official teachings" on the topic, or not. He would know the details better than a search I can perform. The only section that needs clean up now is the Christian legends section that is half referenced, half accurate and often half-baked. Some of that needs to get reduced and referenced but I had not gotten around to that. And there was other clean up that was done too, e.g. the major shrines used to refer to a boarding school and a local church and missed the major Cathedrals - all of that clean up can not be called biased editing. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment about the Baha'i belief on Michael on my talk page. There isn't much about Michael, other that what used to be in the article. Given that there isn't a real importance applied to Michael in Baha'i literature, I would just not include anything about Baha'i beliefs in the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate User:History2007's edits on this page. The only thing I really was against was him not commenting in the WP:Edit Summary the changes that he made. I don't know how or why User:Academictask thinks that our edits were biased. We removed a lot of hogwash and uncited material. Some of the Apocrypha cuts were pretty deep... but, again, nothing was properly cited. We weren't choosing portions for our own preferences... we were editing and cleaning up this page to bring it up to wiki standards and so we had to make deep cuts. I'm sorry, but that is what had to be done. Before, it was incoherent and all wildly all over the place. History2007 and I agreed more on what was necessary to be edited, despite any little discrepancies. There are very few editors that I don't usually have an all out war with. So I was overall, happy to work with History2007. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, fine, now that the tags are gone, let us move on to other articles. I will try to look at the legends section before the end of the year, however, unless someone wants to clean that one up before then. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lothimos,I have appreciated your comments. You made good and specific examples but there are others. Though I have promised not deepen in this, as you politely asked, also look for the Enochian parts (gone) and for simpler examples than those concealed ones that you have found. For example compare the early "See also section" with that left by these users. Observe how connected articles were extirpated from that section. Why for example, akin articles as Saint George (and the others) were plucked? Not a catholic line? I will not keep repeating that what was already explained (as the leading image issue), beyond that it is enough to check the early revisions (great feature). I think enough of my part was made very clear. Only this I will repeat and add: what truly and hopefully one day will have a rest in Wikipedia are the wolves wearing skin of lamb. Because of this depends the survivorship of whole Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the mankind; it is to Hindus, to Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians (Catholics or not), Pagans, Atheists, to everyone (in random sequence).

Now Jasonasosa and History2007, first of all where is the Bahá'í part that you claim to be sourced? The only change showed was the disruptive removal of the "bias tag". Second of all, this doesn’t work that way. It is not up to those directly involved in this discussion to remove the "bias tag". A third party, when the discussion to reach a consensus, will do that, if so. Academictask (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Academictask, could you say very briefly and simply what change you would like to see? Tom Harrison Talk 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Very well, all mentioned above of course, but making a compromise, concern me most the Enochian parts plucked. This would be a good start. A tip: it is not forbidden to use primary sources, as much you don’t interpreted them. You also can use quotations (as you know). Academictask (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It is so gracious of you to compromise of course, but "all mentioned above of course" is incoherent, as I said during the e/c. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
e/c But I should say that overall I see Academictask's statements as incoherent and inconsistent. E.g. take his last Bahá'í statement: "first of all where is the Bahá'í part that you claim to be sourced?". I specifically asked Jeff300 who is the expert on that topic if there is a serious Bahá'í angle on Michael and if so he would have been the best person to write it. And he specifically answered a few paragraphs above that there is no main "official teaching" on Michael in the Bahá'í faith. The statement by Academictask on that issue is just incoherent and inconsistent and just a rambling complaint really. Are we all awake here? And there is a complaint that there is no link to Saint George because that would have been a Catholic Bias! Hello? Hello? Are we all awake here? Your truly (also known as "the unfairly accused") has previously written a specific article on Saint George, detailing the devotions to him. I have no bias against Saint George. But unlike Michael, George does not have a Jewish counterpart, hence that link would have made the article "more biased" towards Christians/Catholics, not less so. As for the main image, it is not even clear what Academictask's problem is. The image used in the infobox is just a face, and has no wings or a sword, so it has no bias. Jewish and Islamic teachings do not use images of Michael, so just a simple image was used, and it had been there before. Jason and myself did not add that image. Are we all awake here? This complaint is just incoherent. The Reni image is one of the "best known" images of Michael, based on his well established iconography. And by the way, the Reni image had also been there before. Jasona or myself did not add it in this round of edits. But such images widely can not be banned from Wikipedia just because of some incoherent comment. Overall, I see no coherence in Academictask's comments. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Academictask, if the article were about angels generally, the Book of Enoch should certainly be mentioned. I'm not sure to what extent the Book of Enoch has been a source for material about Michael specifically. There would need to be secondary sources. In any case, an enumeration of every mention of Michael from the Book of Enoch is not appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a pleasure talk with reasonableness. Of course the content has to show cohesion. I can't agree more that secondary sources would be better than a primary one, but good editors can accomplish that. However, if I am wrong on that, other major subject to be pursued it is the image issue. This it is easiest improvement. All what has to be done, it is to replace to an appropriated (neutral) one, without a biased title like that.Academictask (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to the image, or the image caption? Is it that you think the caption "Saint Michael the Archangel" is biased? I did not add that, but I see no problem is removing the Saint from it so it has the same title as the article. If so, we will do that. Is that all then? History2007 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok History2007, this helps. If done, I can accept that and finally to leave this discussion. But for sure the readers (and me) still will regard this article as missing a comprehensive coverage. Oh, about the article Saint George, the purported bias in that article doesn’t imply that it shouldn’t be linked in this or other articles (because such attitude also it is biased). About removing the tag, this officially should be done by a third user, but I understand the anxiety here, so feel free to remove it. Have good edits. Academictask (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Side note on tag removal: anyone can do it, but let us move on. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, I will just make that change, remove the flag so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
OMG, are you serious? All of this hullabaloo over one little word "Saint"!!!!? Our edits were reverted to an older version and tagged... with the solution to remove that one little word. Academictask you have some nerve opening this discussion and reverting our edits just because of that... when you could have made that change yourself! That was really asinine. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just let bygones be bygones and move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


considering the influence Zoroastrianism had on Judaism and it's daughter faiths, is there any relation between archangel Michael, and the subordinate god Mithras?Ericl (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)