Talk:Michael (archangel)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Additional Information

Michael aka the Fallen Angel:

Michael is the impatient of all the angels, the first one to jump in to help the adam and eve. Michael's companion angels also followed Michael. Michael was so impatient and wanted to help them, end up disobeying the standing orders of the creator. Adam and eve both had only one thing compared to today's humans, the very human foundation "curiosity", he used it as an entry. He deceived them through an apple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthi4all (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

Given as we have a St. Michael (Catholic) page, I'd like to keep that one over this one with the 'Catholic Saint' tag. My Bold change got reverted, so I'm seeking consensus here as to whether that one or both that one and this one should keep this tag. I think that it's sufficient to keep St. Michael (Catholic) with the tag. I'd like to hear the thoughts of those involved in the discussion to split as to which they think should be proper. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There are not two Michaels, there is one Michael the Archangel with multiple views and beliefs. It just happens that the Roman Catholic beliefs are extensive enough to warrant a separate article. A significant portion of this article covers Catholic traditions related to him, and being that it is the same angel in both, it is perfectly justified to claim both articles under the applicable categories. As a general principle, categorization should be generous enough so that users can easily navigate among topics of interest to them. Elizium23 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to make the most sense that the category for Catholic Saints would have the article describing the Catholic beliefs on St. Michael. Anyways, I've left it per consensus here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Legends Section Update

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)

Spurgeon

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angels and archangels wonder at this great plan ...

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

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

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

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

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

Angels and archangels wonder at this great plan ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed, www.pearltrees.com/awhn

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

Merger

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

• Oppose The two articles are indeed about the same figure, but the great amount of information about Saint Michael and the Catholic Church in the other article would be disproportionate if inserted here. Instead, the article Saint Michael (Roman Catholic) should be moved to Saint Michael in the Catholic Church. There is no Roman Catholic Saint Michael distinct from the Saint Michael commonly so called. Does anyone object to that move? May I make the move, with someone's support? Esoglou (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should not be merged (and to Propositum: It's true that most Christians in the world are Catholic, but this is English Wikipedia, and most Christians in English-speaking countries are not Catholic). But, about your second part, that's not relevant here, but should be brought up at Talk:Saint Michael (Roman Catholic). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! English Wikipedia is de facto the worldwide one. And also, Catholic Church remains the biggest confession even in the countries where English is the native language. Moreover, it's good idea for a Wikipedia to reflect the global, not national point of view. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever about that question, which I think is not decisive one way or the other, what do you think of the Musdan77's refusal to support or oppose here the proposal to move "Saint Michael (Roman Catholic)" to "Saint Michael in the Catholic Church"? Esoglou (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I think that it is a good idea, but maybe let it be discussed at Talk:Saint Michael (Roman Catholic). Best regards, Propositum (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Such moves, if considered uncontroversial, are done in done in great numbers every day. Reaction here seems to show it is not controversial. If anyone disagrees, a revert is easy. Esoglou (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support merge the 2 articles. The Catholic bits can be toned down if they get in the way too much. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Combining the two would leave an article with over 90,0000 kB, (although I didn't measure readable prose), which becomes a problem for readability. See Wp:Article size "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. ... Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many users edit from low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections." If anything, the section on Catholicism could be trimmed so that it doesn't duplicate the other article. If they're combined, someone will just come along later and split them again. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment @Mannanan51: A merger never results in 2 + 2 = 4. The merged entity is ususally only slightly longer than the longest article. So I don't think that that's a good reason for opposing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Even if in this case 2+2=3, it would still be too long by Mannanan51's calculations. And there remains the disproportion between the abundant Catholic-veneration material and the rest. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose should not be merged - and should be left alone as it is. Hafspajen (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Esoglou, and I have no objection to their proposed move--though it's probably best to play it safe and propose it on that talk page, pinging the participants in this discussion who have commented on it. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the Roman Catholic view and doctrine regarding the Archangel Michael would seem to be stand-alone, different, and separate enough, with separate stand-alone sources on that, to warrant its own separate and distinct article on Wikipedia. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two distinct encyclopedic topics. They're already much too large to merge, and doing so would impede their development. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The catholic article is too long to be merged. It deserves to be a stand alone article. --Jayarathina (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

IPA use; pronunciation

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

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

LDS teaching

Would this be a place to mention the older and now-unaccepted LDS teaching that Michael was also God the Father and Adam? See the Wiki article on the Adam-God doctrine.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Defunct interpretations of minor denominations would almost certainly constitute undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight under "Protestant Views"

Spurgeon's opinion is extremely rare vs the majority of published Protestant theology. This part of the article should be written from a more balanced & neutral POV, or be filled with tons of opposing viewpoints. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Scriptural vs Scripture

The article currently reads again (after my edit was reversed): Contents ~ 1 Scriptural references ~ 1.1 Hebrew Bible ~ 1.2 New Testament ~ 1.3 Quran

“Scripture”, noun = a sacred quote FROM the “book”

Is it Scripture? asks a person not familiar with Scripture -- emphasis on the quotation.

“Scriptural”, adj = a teaching, faithful TO the book

Is it scriptural? asks a person not familiar with doctrine -- emphasis on the trueness of the quotation comments.

In my opinion, a lot of Wiki information is not Scriptural. It is Bible-Based, but not True-to-Scripture. Anyway, in the context of these headings, “Scripture References” is more accurate & appropriate than “Scriptural References”. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The adjective "scriptural" properly describes the references. As an adjective it doesn't mean 'a teaching' as suggested above. It is awkward and unnecessary to juxtapose the two nouns scripture and references for the subheading in question. Your implication about whether something is 'scriptural' in the sense that it is 'consistent with (a particular person's) interpretation of scripture' is outside the context of a secular encyclopedia (and whether something is supposedly 'true to scripture' is almost always a contested POV among various brands of 'believer' anyway).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

To illustrate my point, References From Various Scriptures is less awkward than References From Various Scripturals. --Purrhaps (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Your 'illustration' is malformed. It's like complaining that it's 'wrong' to say "American people" because it doesn't make sense to say "people from American". Is English your first language?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here goes another shot from Jeffro. I could say is thinking a new experience for you? -- but that would be just replying in (un)kind. I was trying to improve the article. Leave it your way. Take care. --Purrhaps (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I correctly pointed out that your suggestion was not an improvement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My edit is a definite improvement (illustrated above), but you conveniently side-stepped you shooting down the PERSON, rather than the POINT. --Purrhaps (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Your 'illustration' demonstrates that you are trying to use these words as if in a religious setting, wherein people very frequently assert undemonstrable unfalsifiable theological opinions as if they are 'really' some kind of 'ultimate truth' (as if so-called 'holy books'—mostly by entirely anonymous authors—are actually some kind of objective 'authority'). Wikipedia articles should not assert that any interpretation of 'scripture' is 'more true' than any other, and the subsection heading should instead simply use the correct grammar, which is the adjective scriptural for identifying references that pertain to scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"References" (eg. Pr.1:7,29; 9:10) should be changed to "Quotations" (ref + the quote).

Pr.1:7 ~ The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Pr.1:29 ~ For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Pr.9:10 ~ The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding. -- Purrhaps (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The references to verses in Proverbs don't seem to have anything to do with Michael or any other archangels. You seem to be using them as some kind of hypothetical superstitious 'threat' or, at the very least, vapid religious 'advice'. Bible verses are not incantations, and using 'scriptures' at Talk pages in this manner is not appropriate.

As to your actual claim that "references" should be changed to "quotations", you are incorrect. The section is about scriptural references to Michael. Calling them "quotations to Michael" would be nonsensical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We see things so differently, on so many things. "Quotations About Michael from Various Scriptures" is what you seem to be meaning with your title, "Scripture References". ~ And sorry that you took offense & took the verses personally. "References" are just the address where the quotation comes from, but that doesn't seem to communicate. Oh well.-- Purrhaps (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You're going around in circles. At no point did I suggest the wording "scripture references", which employs a noun in place of the correct adjective. Scriptural references refers to references to Michael in scriptures. Your verbose alternative is not an improvement.

And it is not a matter of 'taking the verses personally', but the irrelevant selection of scriptures that imply a judgemental religious point of view at a Talk page that is the problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael (archangel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407070838/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526031746/http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Monuments/The_Vatican_Museums/Sistine_Chapel--p--5.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Monuments/The_Vatican_Museums/Sistine_Chapel--p--5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Section: "Islam", Qur'anic citations incorrect, need to be corrected

Section: "Islam", Qur'anic citation incorrect, need to be corrected. The correct citation is surah 2 ayah 98 (singular), not ayahs 97-98 (plural).

Also the correct citation for a Qur'anic reference, should have the apostrophe in the word "Qur'an", and not without, as also the citation reference should always use "surah" and "ayah", for the division notation, not "chapter" and "verse". The Qur'an is not set up by "chapter", as other texts, but by length. Surah Al Fatiha, is not actually "chapter" 1, but simply given its place by the length, and same for every "surah" unto the last, whether it was meccan or medinian.

Lastly there are many English Qur'anic translations, all differing in some matter of detail. The one cited in this wiki article, is actually from the "Yusuf-Ali" translation, and not from others, such as the al-Hilali-Khan (official Saudi), Shakir, Pickthal, Sarwar, Dawood, etc, all being from the Uthmanic recension and Zaid ibn Thabit, rather than Ubayy bin Kab, or Ibn Mas'ud. It is neither any of the other 26+ Arabic texts, such as the Warsh, Hafs, Ruh, al-Duri, Abu Harith, al-Susi, al-Bazi, etc.

Making these corrections and distinctions, will make this present article more accurate, coherent, consistent and reliable for verifiable information. 172.56.32.229 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Adventist (Protestant) views

The beliefs about Michael held by Seventh-Day Adventist and Jehovah's Witness, both derived from Protestantism via 19th century Adventism, are the same as those of other Protestants. Both subsections could be deleted and replaced with a single sentence in the Protestant section stating that "groups derived from Adventism, including Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, have the same view of Michael". The subsections reference the same scriptures, with the same reasoning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael (archangel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202024354/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture

--MelanieN, here's a couple examples to consider for a new section:

• In the 1961 science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land, Valentine Michael Smith, a human born on Mars, it was hinted that he was an incarnation of the Archangel Michael.

• As depicted in the 2002 film Gangs of New York, immigrants battled the native born Americans for control of Five Points, Manhattan in rememberance of Saint Michael. Bought the farm (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

The article

Why does it not show the regular profile? Michael May II (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Systemic Bias not only all over the main, but also in the editing and reverts.

Systemic Bias not only all over the main, but also in the editing and reverts.

The article reads like fan-boys in hoodies, of a certain religion in a major Italian city, wrote the whole article and then got carried away with their iconography and statuary fetishes as found in specific 'pro'-'my way or the rack religious countries'.

The article drips with a single Italian flavor, crapuchino, and very little to do with actual historical analysis, very little documentation from any position, religious or other, absolutely surrounded in the complete vagueness of incertitude.

This goes for Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Islamic and any other faith listed.

The whole thing is a merry-go-round of, "Ooooh isn't this iconography shiny, and Oh, looky here, a statue made by some guy in this completely irrelevant city."

Where is the actual historical analysis from the Jews in their sources, and the early Christians in the gospels, and the ECF, and from the Protestants, and others?

The article is about "Michael Archangel", not the "Iconography of Michael", neither the "statuary of Michael", etc. It is about "Michael Archangel", from origin to present. If some desire to include some iconography as the history progressed, or statuary that's fine, but not all over the place. It is unneeded. I care about facts, details, not someones personal art fetishes.

Seriously. Can we get this article away from the 'pious' and back to the serious?

Thank you.

208.147.18.12 (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This section:

"... Protestant denominations generally recognize only two archangels, Michael and Gabriel, usually emphasizing Michael, unlike Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy which may at times recognize seven (and in rare cases eight) archangels, with Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael generally regarded with an elevated status, e.g. being the only archangels honored by name in Catholicism. ..."

is also highly suspect, in that the Protestants understood "generally" more than 'two archangels', and even knew that Lucifer/satan is an archangel, along with other angels in leading positions, whether for or against.

Also, why does it need to include all of the non-protestant material (bolded) in the protestant section, when the other sections are already filled with such?

208.147.18.12 (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This Section:

"... Many Protestant Christians do not call upon the intercession of saints. However, an unofficial Anglican prayer of preparation before Mass includes a confession to "Michael the Archangel" as well as other saints such as John the Baptist. ..."

is also unnecessary in that it simply tries to include intercession of saints in the protestant section through an 'unofficial prayer' in the modern Anglican development without citation as to the author or date of said prayer. It is bloating the article from the main point and heavily biased.

208.147.18.12 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A strong bias continues on this page about the following historical material.

Do not revert, simply because the sources are not liked. If the sources are unwelcome, find better sources, for simply because a source is unwelcome is no reason to delete an entire section of history. What some call blog page is actually citing a source, in a tertiary manner, and is often better than other sources already listed on this page in other areas:

Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1–17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel." Such scholars include but are not limited to:

1. Martin Luther
2. Hengstenberg with others
3. Dr. W. L. Alexander [in Kitto], Prof. Douglas [in Fairbairn]
4. Jacobus Ode, Campegius Vitringa, Sr.
5. Philip Melanchthon, Broughton, Junius, Calvin, Hävernick
6. Polanus, Genevens, Oecolampadius & others, Adam Clarke
7. Bishop Horsely
8. Cloppenburgh, Vogelsangius, Pierce and others (Horsely)
9. John (Jean) Calvin
10. Isaac Watts, John Bunyan, Brown's Dictionary, James Wood's Spiritual Dictionary
11. and many others
12. for even before them, the Jewish commentators, such as Wetstein, Surenhusius, etc.

In the 19th Century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon stated that Jesus is "the true Michael" and “the only Archangel”, and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.

208.147.18.12 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph has no references

I'm new to Wikipedia but I find this disturbing and have no idea how to even bring it up as a discussion (make a new section or what). The references currently Say "when" and "where" so not sure why this paragraph should even be in here unless someone can give a reference. I find this highly unscientific and it seems it should be deleted since there is no source. Quote:

Michael is mentioned three times in the Book of Daniel. The idea that Michael was the advocate of the Jews became so prevalent[when?] that, in spite of the rabbinical prohibition against appealing to angels as intermediaries between God and his people, Michael came to occupy a certain place in the Jewish liturgy[where?]. TheSuperCE (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)TheSuperCE

Your point seems to me valid. tnks. Jamessprague99 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Change title from Michael (archangel) to Michael (Archangel) with capital "A"

I don't know if its possible to do, but could the title of the article be changed from "Michael (archangel)" to "Michael (Archangel)" with a capital "A". "archangel" corresponds to the second to lowest class of angels, whilst "Archangel" denotes the highest level of seraphim (the highest angels). Its a minor edit, but it means the difference between the highest level of angel and the second to lowest. Michael is an "Archangel" with a capital "A". Throughout the rest of the article Michael is referred to as "Archangel" with capital "A", it's just the title where the mistake exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchistdog (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 06:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Michael (archangel) → Michael the Archangel – Michael the Archangel is a more common name for him, and is also a better name for an article than Michael (archangel). Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC) (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)).

• This seems reasonable. The Michael the Archangel redirect is already pretty well used (82 mainspace wikilinks). It's also commonly used text in piped links to the article name. Also worth considering "[The] Archangel Michael", which is also commonly used as pipe text, and is slightly more popular in books according to ngrams. If consensus is reached to move this article, it may make sense to do the same for Raphael (archangel) and Jerahmeel (archangel). Colin M (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Michael the Archangel is gramatically incorrect, it would technically be "Michael, the Archangel". However, given that such a name is improper for a Wikipedia article title, I think it should remain with the parenthetical disambiguation. Massive example of WP:AINTBROKE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What of John the Baptist? Or even William the Conqueror? I also don't think WP:AINTBROKE applies in this case - there are very good reasons to prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation when possible. Colin M (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Those are WP:COMMON names. Not so in this case. Ergo, oppose. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned them as a response to Zxcvbnm's claim that "‹Name› the ‹noun›" is grammatically incorrect. As for "Michael the Archangel" not being a common name, on what do you base that claim? It gets plenty of hits on Google books, and of the books that come up in a search for just michael archangel, a fairly high proportion use the "Michael the Archangel" form (with or without "Saint"). Colin M (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as above In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why? (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)).

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

in Islam

this sentence does not make sense to me: " Accordingly, he was sent to bring a handful of earth; but the Earth not yield a piece of itself, some of which will burn." Am I missing something obvious? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:A4CD:8FEC:A8DA:65F5 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the "some of which will burn" part does not make much sense, since burning was nowhere mentioned here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Artistic Depictions - Specifying Location

Elizium23 and I started discussing the verbiage used to denote where Michael and Gabriel are placed in relation to Mary in Mary and Jesus. In my opinion, the original verbiage is somewhat ambiguous as it does not specify whose frame of reference we are using, the reader's or Mary's. While I don't presently have access to the referenced text, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, excerpts that I was able to see from the previews take care to provide a frame of reference for viewers to use (i.e. Jesus on Mary's right).

Should we change the specific wording to make it somewhat clearer where Michael and Gabriel are painted in relation to Mary?

Be an adult (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree: it's ambiguous, and the best solution is to say "Mary's right" or "Mary and Jesus' right". Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigil

I do not know if a 'sigil' can be copyrighted, particularly one from an apparently nonexistent book. Elizium23 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

yer. ber.

The article uses the abbreviation "Yer. ber." in its references. I think this means "Jerusalen Gemara", but am not sure. Could anyone direct me to any wikipedia sources (articles, etc.) for this? Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

New section with unsourced claims

I have found Michael mentioned several times in the Bible.

Numbers 13:13 1 Chronicles 5:13, 5:14, 6:40, 7:3, 8:16, 12:20, 27:18 2 Chronicles 21:2 Ezra 8:8 Jude 1:9 Revelation 12:7

I believe Numbers is one of the oldest books in the Bible, possibly written before 500 BC or even earlier. I have read that the Books of Moses could possibly be as old as 4000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.121.113 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Mention of Satan in Jewish part of page

I'm new to editing Wikipedia wise, but the portion of this page mentioning Satan in the Jewish description of Michael seems off. The quote cites Deuteronomy, but looking up the quote finds the sentence from Jude 1:9 , which is Christian in origin. Even if the source was correct I think the location of this info is somewhat misleading, it probably should have the citation corrected and placed otherwhere in the page.--Accalvaster (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The source is Darryl Hannah's book Michael and Christ: Michael Tradition and Angel Christology, pages 33-54. The wide page range is because it's referencing a number of things, but page 41 says this: "The lost ending of the Assumption of Moses, as attested in Jude 9, apparently portrayed Michael contesting Satan's legal claim over the body of Moses." The Assumption (or Testament) of Moses is from the 1st century, making this a Second Temple work. There are other references to the Deuteronomy Rabbah (not Deuteronomy) and to Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews testifying to a later period of Judaism. Achar Sva (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the sources, I still have some questions. It appears that the ending of Assumption of Moses is not concretely known with conflicting versions. Looking for a translation of Ch 11 from the Deuteronomy Rabbah (xi, 6)Rabbah there is mention of a conflict between Samael and Gabriel, Samuel is not seen as Satan in the Jewish Tradition. Looking through different translations [1] the Deuteronomy Rabbah also mentions the conflict between Gabriel and Samael, not Satan. Accalvaster (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Old Calendar

On Nov. 8, new calendar Orthodox and Catholic Eastern churches celebrate St Michael. On Nov. 21, old calendar Orthodox and Catholic Eastern churches celebrate St Michael. Secretly to each other they say "today is really Nov 8 but the modernists don't know" You have it backwards 2607:FEA8:FF01:78AF:1517:E254:7046:5345 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

God-Adam-Michael doctrine

the doctrine that Michael is Adam is God the Father was taught by some early leaders of the Church, and is still believed by some fundamentalist groups. see Adam-God doctrine 2607:FEA8:FF01:78AF:1517:E254:7046:5345 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

languages

why these only? The choice of languages seems either random, or original research (I have decided these are the important ones), or the plumes of a peacock. 2607:FEA8:FF01:78AF:1517:E254:7046:5345 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: archangel. Moved: given name. There's consensus on not moving the archangel page. For the given name page, there's a mix of neutral and move, with more supporting a move with the dab page taking over the base title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Michael (archangel) → Michael
• Michael → Michael (given name)

– The archangel has around 7 times the page views of the given name over a 90 day period (see here). I'd move the archangel to base name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and long-term significance for the angel. cookie monster 755 00:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment not convinced there's a PRIMARYTOPIC, I'd probably have DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That's better than having the given name at the base page. cookie monster 755 02:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose 1st, Neutral 2nd. It doesn't seem like the archangel is the primary topic. I think that either the given name OR the disambiguation page should be at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose instead replace the base location with a disambiguation page. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd indeed the archangel gets more views but the given name also has long-term significance so the DAB is probably the best option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd Michael (disambiguation) to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support both per pageviews. The dab page is barely used, so making it primary helps very few readers. Srnec (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd. Those are not the only two "Michael" topics. See Michael (disambiguation). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd Per WP:NOPRIMARY, while moving the disambiguation page to base name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose first, neutral on the second. "Michael" is in way too common use to refer primarily to the archangel. JIP | Talk 07:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, neutral on 2nd. The archangel is clearly not the primary topic for this very common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Churches named after Michael

The list is unorganized, not comprehensive and arbitrary in its selection. I suggest removing it and adding St. Michael's Church (List) to Section See Also, as well as the direction to the Commons List. ElaborateLisa (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

mental healing

discribing a vision 2600:1700:EA00:4FA0:F561:D92E:1846:5362 (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Missing the feast day of the Roman Catholic Church

This article doesn't contain the Roman Catholic feast day of St. Michael which is the primary treat day of St Michael. 175.157.245.135 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit notice

This edit notice has been present since 2011. May I suggest that it has served its purpose and can now be removed? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I second this motion. Eruditess (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Revelation of Jesus Christ

Please correct where it's written "Revelation of John" under "New Testament" to Revelation of Jesus Christ as it is the way written in the scripture Rev.1:1 The book is the revelation of Jesus Christ, NOT John 2601:14D:4B80:4960:101:CE2A:EE48:EA61 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Changed to "Book of Revelation". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

marking as  Done Eruditess (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly 2604:2D80:9E90:D00:8078:30EA:DBCB:FA10 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Supernatural

I just wanted to add in the TV show Supernatural the Archangel Michael appears for several episodes. Anyone want to add? Lady Meg (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lady Meg: no, that's trivia. You'd need a third-party source that discusses why it is notable and significant to the subject of this article. Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)