Talk:Angel

Additional references

Somewhere here, but not at hand, are Jung's Man and His Symbols, as well as various works by Joseph Campbell. The article should not address only Biblical references. Indeed, are there different interpretations in different translations? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the article needs to draw on scholarly sources as it expands, but I don't quite understand why there should be a ban on any mention of passages from the Bible (or the Qur'an, or various non-scriptural texts from various religions, all of which contain references to angels). Those texts are the only (or at least the major) source of evidence of what ancient peoples believed about angels. It seems to be analogous to an article on the U.S. system of government that was not allowed to quote from the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. Of course the article needs to draw (and probably predominantly) on secondary sources -- some of which may explain, among other things, the possible translation biases you suggest -- but why prohibit mention of the relevant primary sources? Bruce M. Tindall 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Only inserted where I had meant it to go above. Bad keyboard! Bad keyboard! Howard C. Berkowitz 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand, Luuuuke! Bruce M. Tindall 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it will need to integrate other references at some point. Actually, what might be a good step would be creating a subpage for Angels solely as mentioned in the Bible, maybe a page called Angels "(Biblical)", and then provide only a shortened summation on this page of the Biblical usage, with a link to the subpage. I think right now I will 'edit boldly' and move the Biblical material to a subpage, and then work on a concise summary of angels as mentioned in the Bible. By all means, let me hear your thoughts on whether this is the best way to go about this, and what your thoughts are on how the page('s) structure should be idealized. --Joshua Zambrano 22:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Subpage Created

Okay, let me know how this looks :) I think the key parts of the page on the Bible's history and general details about angels is alright to keep, but I'm recognizing the page needs to incorporate details on them from other religions and sources, and my current writing was just too lengthy. This will make it much more concise here, allowing room for those who want to mention their reference elsewhere, and can easily be updated between pages. --Joshua Zambrano 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, this will allow others to create page sections on the mention of angels in the Koran, or by Jung, so the Bible section didn't take up undue weight. And on the Angels (Biblical) page, it can be linked to specifically by pages referencing only the Biblical version. --Joshua Zambrano 22:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I'd like to invite Howard or another person to write the definition for this page. While I might write the one at the Angels (Biblical) page, I expect my definition would be more from a Biblical perspective than inclusive of all perspectives, and thus better suited there than here. :) --Joshua Zambrano 00:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm just not as versed in Islamic beliefs on angels, or with Jungian theory, but would like to invite anyone knowledgeable and interested to complete sections on those here. I recognize others make valid points that this page should represent a myriad of different views and ideas on angels, for a balanced representation of the topic, and have tried to minimize the Bible's section to be concise for when such other sections are written. If someone knows enough about them, they may wish to write subpages for them just as I wrote one for the Bible's perspective. --Joshua Zambrano 00:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be singular? Is the plural for a reason? Ro Thorpe 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be singular. I recall wondering which when I made the page, and decided plural because I thought another page did similarly on another subject. I don't really have a preference, and will abide by whatever others think it should be. I don't mind seeing it changed to singular and can change the subpage to singular as well if that is the consensus for this one. --Joshua Zambrano 01:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Subpage versus subarticle

Let me preface this by saying CZ terminology is confusing. I think you mean subarticle rather than subpage. Subpages are additional tabs on the main cluster, used for such things as debate guides, catalogs, etc.

Subarticles are actually no different than other articles, except that they are subordinate to the main article on its Related Articles page. I'll set up some examples on Angels/Related Articles and we can play with them. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to fix my terminology then, thanks for the advice :) I noticed the changes made from the Recent Changes. I do think for how much Biblical material I had, it merited a subarticle rather than all being put here, and hopefully this new format works better. --Joshua Zambrano 01:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Plural v. singular

Ro is right that the singular tends to be CZ style, although I think a good argument here can be made for the plural. After all, most religions have classes of multiple angelic beings.

Opinions? I hate title battles, so I won't create a cluster for Angels (biblical) until we get a consensus. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd be happy to see this made singular, and have no preference either way. I don't even remember my exact reasoning for making it plural at the time, and will abide by whatever everyone else thinks. --Joshua Zambrano 01:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll change it tomorrow if there are still no objections. Ro Thorpe 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good! Feel free to change the Angels (Biblical) article to singular as well, or I can if no one else does. --Joshua Zambrano 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Bible" heading

Isn't this somewhat presented from a Christian standpoint, which assumes that the Old and New Testaments would go together. Would a Jewish theologian separate the sections? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I put in some references to the Old Testament as the Tanakh and its relation to Judaism, and for the New Testament, to Christianity. Would that be sufficient? And if not, could you provide a proposal on how to change the section? --Joshua Zambrano 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)