Talk:War of Heaven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Wrong template?

As far as I can tell this article has nothing to do with definite fiction, and a lot to do with beliefs. Is there a better template we can use? Like "this article fails to make a distinction between belief and verified facts", perhaps? RobbieG 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the template seems wrong, it's more suited to a poorly-written Star Wars article or something. Just touch up the opening sentence to make it more clear ("Coruscant is a fictional planet in the Star Wars universe...") that it's part of Christian mythology, if you think it's lacking. Are we agreed to remove the template? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Boldly removing it. RobbieG 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

Can any citations be provided for the literary origins of this story other than the Book of Revelations? Are there any published versions of this story from early Christian history (ca. <= 500 A.D.) or at least before 1273 A.D. (Pope John XXI)? Low Sea 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and sources

I reverted a couple of the changes made by Sherurcij. They were small changes, but since religion tends to cause people to hold strong views, I thought it best to explain my edits here.

Firstly, there's my changing the first sentence from (boldings mine) "A facet of Christian mythology, the War in Heaven was a defining moment in the universe, when the cherub angel Lucifer led a third of the Angels in an open revolution against God and his loyal angels" to "In Christian mythology, the War in Heaven was a defining moment in the universe..." etc. Sherurcij changed it back without explanation. I've changed it to "According to Christian mythology, the War in Heaven was a defining moment in the universe..." on the grounds that as far as many non-Christians (and indeed many Christians) are concerned, the War in Heaven was not a defining moment in anything, because, as far as many people are concerned, it never actually happened.

The other change was my re-addition of the cite tag. Sherurcij deleted it with the explanation that "The date is based off the War taking place at the time of Creation of mankind, which according to Christian doctrine,was 6000 years ago." I don't think that's good enough - we need a reference to a published source that describes said doctrine and mentions the date. As far as I am aware, the Book of Genesis does not provide any dates, and all dates were worked out by researchers and religious people based on information in the Bible (for example the Genesis 5). There must be plenty of documents that can be cited, but without them this is original research. RobbieG 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problems with the first change, not a huge deal - I don't see either one as suggesting that it's true, they both identify it as mythological, so if you think "According to" is better than "A facet of", that's fine with me. The date however is fairly solid, see Genealogies_of_Genesis#Enumerated_genealogy, Ussher chronology, Dating_Creation#_ref-0, John Lightfoot or Young Earth creationism - general "Christian" assumption is that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Since this war is assumed to have taken place as a result of the Creation of Man, it is fair to say "~4000 BC" (or BCE< if you prefer) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for replying so quickly; that's fine as long as a reference is given. RobbieG 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs expansion

There's some good info here, but there's a lot more missing. What is all this based on? What are the relevant passages in the Bible or other works? How do Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs on the subject differ?--Cúchullain t/c 21:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, very strongly. This is a really salient story in Christian mythology, and deserves much more explanation than it's getting here. I wish that I was even slightly knowledgeable about the topic; then I would beef up the whole article. Oh well. --Hermitage (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We could add a great amount of detail from Milton, if we counted it as canon...but I'm not sure it meets the same benchmark as the Bible, the Pope or similar religious "authorities". Perhaps we could add a "Milton's Interpretation" section specifically? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variations

I removed the references to Nahusha because that link as written was pretty much "Original Research". Firstly, the Hindu tradition (and literature and legends) talk about Swarga which has different qualities than Heaven as described in Christian accounts. Secondly, Nahusha aspired to be Indra presiding over Swarga and successfully acquired the post through austerities. Finally his downfall was due to a curse by a Rishi in conjunction with his behavior against Dharma. So even as a piece of Original Research, the story of Nahusha is unrelated to that of Lucifer.

[edit] Statistics?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem kind of odd to present the specific dates and numbers of angels as if they were actually facts, and not merely speculation? I know we're talking about belief and everything, but isn't it still a bit misleading to present these statistics as if they were beleived in by all or most Christians? The whole "4000 B.C. Creation" thing is not beleived in by the majority of Christians, much less all Christians.

I apologize if I'm wrong, this article just doesn't seem to be getting much attention, so I just wanted to put it out there in case I wasn't.

At its core, it's a myth, therefore its 'facts' are those decided by the mythmakers. I think the article makes it clear that it's mythological, so you're basically saying that Greek mythology should have a disclaimer saying "most modern greeks do not believe this"? Seems a bit unnecessary. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but modern greeks do not follow Greek mythology. It's ancient Greek mythology. If we had a myth found in the mythology that was only accepted by a small number of Greeks, it would be a good idea to add a note about that. Christianity, if you consider it a mythology, is alive and popular. Most of these extra-biblical myths spring up from Catholicism, and even many Catholics do not believe them. If you consider the whole mythology the information outside the Bible, that would be more accurate. Either way, it needs clarifying. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the numbers in the battle, the mythmakers didn't come up with these. We only have two sources for the numbers - Pope John XXI in 1273 and an 'affirmation' by Alphonso de Spina in the 1400s. Only the latter of these has a citation, and even the reference there is a website with only a brief remark. Can't we come up with something a little more substantial? Tsumaru 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a better source, by all means use it - otherwise we'll keep what we can get. The pope seems like a fairly authoritative source on a doctrine of Christian mythology, after all. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't find the pope an authority on Christianity when he speaks outside the Bible (which I believe is the only true source). But he is a good source on Catholicism. It's quite obvious that no such numbers are indicated by the Bible (unless the Pope is estimating by the verse about a third of the stars being swept out of the sky, which a lot of people take to mean angels falling). This is extra-Biblical, and therefore is not a doctrine of Christianity in general. It is mythology, built up around the original doctrine. I, too, wonder how he got those numbers. At any rate, I don't believe most Christians, including Catholics, believe that these numbers are infallibly accurate. If there are any Catholics present, feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong. --Narfil Palùrfalas 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
However, the "myth" of this great battle, which is extra-biblical largely, and told in stained glass and stories of saints, was created at a time when there only were two churchs (Orthodox and Catholic) and was entirely Catholic in origin. The "later" churches that stressed "only biblical" sources for Christianity hadn't been created yet at the time of this myth. So no, most protestants wouldn't accept the Pope's numbers as neccessarily valid, but neither would most Catholics who dismiss it as "legend" - but it's like saying that Luke Skywalker is 21 years old...he's a fictional character, so whether later authors agree or disagree, rewrite new sources or find older drafts of the script where he's 17...it doesn't matter, ultimately "this story" is the creation of George Lucas, so we just tell it like he said it. The Catholic church largely "wrote" the stories of Lucifer and Michael as commonly known (very little of it is biblically-sourced)...so they are "the authority" on the myth, as I see it. For what it's worth, I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant, I'm simply trying to write an informative and concise wiki article. But "the pope says there are X angels" is like saying "Bob says corvettes look best in blue", it's clearly sourced to a single reference - and presumably anybody who doesn't believe/follow Bob/thePope, wouldn't necessarily agree with the statement. If a specific church (such as we've done with LDS and Sufis) has an "alternate" fact, by all means include it...but saying "not everybody agrees with the Pope" is superfluous, presumably every reader knows that not everybody in the world believes the Pope, that would be like saying "Bob says corvettes look best in blue...but other people have other opinions or don't accept Bob as the ultimate authority". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I believe I understand you better. The article itself does not define "Christian mythology", though the link does. To improve this article, I would suggest an up-front definition of Christian mythology (i.e., extra-Biblical myths). I think a casual reader might easily suppose that the content of this article was common Christian teaching. I also note that several of the references are Biblical passages. The Revelation reference says nothing about the Angels being cast into Hell (rather, to the earth). The Isaiah reference is also presented as definitive, when actually the number of Christians who equate Lucifer to Satan is rapidly dropping. The Luke reference as well is debated. Anyway, my point is that they are not solid references. We need to cite Catholic sources that come out and say these things. I'm not sure where to find any. --Narfil Palùrfalas 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
My issue was as much with the lack of real referencing as opposed to anything else. If you take a look, the reference we are given only has a little bit of relevant information, and that is referenced from somewhere else itself. How do we know that the Pope said this many numbers, and how do we know that Alphonso de Spina reaffirmed it later? I would be happy if the reference was actually a reputable source. Tsumaru 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


As a former Catholic and as a Born Again Christian I never heard of God telling the angels to bow down to men. This whole "war of heaven" sounds pretty ridiculous to someone who takes Christianity seriously, even if he or she is not a Christian and casts doubt on other information. I vote for deleting the whole thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W2OPB (talk • contribs) 19:10, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] overlinking?

Are the following links really necessary? "Bow down" "hubris" "declaration of war", and the fact that "Hell" is linked twice during the article?

I could go either way on them, but people without a firm grasp on English could easily not understand what "hubris" is, and bowing down could mean different things (in this context, genuflecting, not picking up the soap in the shower), the declaration of war I'm iffy and might side with you, and obviously you're right, Hell shouldn't be linked twice. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly infobox

Okay. This is all regarding the infobox and WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes.

This is the last place I want to get into a real-world versus in-universe fight, but this isn't a military conflict (so force numbers, exact dates, and especially casualties are a little silly), and the infobox doesn't ascribe any sort of useful historical or literary or mythological context, like the origin of all of this.

WP:WAF recommends that infoboxes cover first, primarily, and sometimes exclusively the relevant real-world facts, not the facts from the perspective of the world of the story. This means authors, the relevant works, the year of publication, etc.

I'm not going to argue about whether this article should be written in an in-universe or out-of-universe way. I just think that the infobox focuses mostly on silly trivia, and it is no longer practice to use {{Infobox Military Conflict}} outside of articles on, you know, military conflicts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if you read WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes as you quoted, it specifically says "By contrast, an infobox on a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance" and the parts that do mention avoiding fictional uses, don't cover this article specifically - we're not delving into minuatae, we're giving the names of the armies, their respectives strengths, their respective commanders, and the final outcome...just like in First Battle of Fallujah. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Their respective strengths are trivial, numbers attributed to a pope in the 13th century. Michael's role isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. The date isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Half of this infobox isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, but it manages to neglect mentioning the fact that this is a biblical story entirely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you listened to User:Narfil Palùrfalas at all, it largely isn't a biblical story...so I'm not surprised that the article doesn't claim it is. Also, the fact so much of the information in the infobox isn't given in the proseline is even more evidence that the infobox is useful and serves a purpose. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You're highlighting the weakness exactly. Where did this story come from? That's the first question above all others, and the infobox utterly fails to convey this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Into Hell?

The article says the angels were cast into Hell, however the cited text states that the demons were cast out into the Earth, not into Hell. Thus, this is misleading.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.102.20 (talk • contribs)

[edit] The Punishment of the Angels is debatable

I put that. But you are absolutely write. In the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of Luke, they are thrown down to Earth. However, according to Book of Isaiah and Paradise Lost, the insigneficant Rebel Angels who fell from God's grace were thrown into Hell. Plus, Satan is the ruler of Hell. So both you and I are correct with a slight error.-Angel David ?!?, 01:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Paradise Lost is simply fiction. I don't believe anyone bases their beliefs on that. Of course, since this article is apocryphal anyway it might be counted significant. And due to the poetic nature of Isaiah, besides the fact that many Christians believe Lucifer is not Satan at all, it is extremely dubious that it says they were cast into Hell. And, I might add, in Christianity (even some Christians get this mixed up) Satan is not the ruler of Hell - Hell is made as a punishment for him. If the Rebel Angels were thrown down to Hell after the theoretical rebellion, why are there still Demons, and why is Satan still considered by Christianity the deceiver? If he's in Hell he can't harm us. But Christianity teaches he's still active. So that doesn't make sense. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorising religion article as fiction

Hey just wanted to express my opinion, about categorising religion articles as fiction. It's a really bad idea. Most people have a religion, so claiming religion is fiction is in fact POV pushing and not the opposite. It would be POV pushing to claim it is real also, just use the religion related categories, that's what they are there for. Let each individual make up his own mind. You will find multiple reliable third party sources claiming religion is true and others that religion is fictitious. So it's best to just stay out of it. Jackaranga 04:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is somewhat less touchy because it's not really a doctrine of Christianity, and many Christians do not even believe there was such a rebellion (I, for instance, believe it's probable that Satan was a fallen angel, but the Bible simply doesn't talk about it). Those numbers are accepted only by some Catholics, certainly not all, and certainly not Protestants. Still, with that said, we should probably come up with a better category. Wikipedians seem to prefer "mythology" when dealing with religion, especially apocrypha that is only accepted by a certain number, or comes (in Christianity) from extra-Biblical sources. But fiction implies that it's just plain fiction, i.e., nobody accepts it as anything but literature. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I pseudo-agree, I mean it's odd not having any "battle" categories, but having it in "Category:Historical battles" seems even worse than having it in "Category:Fictional battles", I don't suppose we could agree on creating a "mythological battles" category for this, and other religious/Greek&RomanGods/etc battles? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it might be good middle ground. I agree with making a "mythological battles" cat instead of leaving it uncategorized battle-wise, although personally I love having it in fictional battles. DEVS EX MACINA pray 08:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't fictional. on't do this. Is a terrile idea. Terrible! Why are you doing this? it's not that fair. You shouldn't do this at all.--User:Angel David (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. What you're basically saying is "it's fictional, but let's not say so in case we upset some people who believe it." Misodoctakleidist (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

© 2007-2008 Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary
Fiction
1 a: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b: fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c: a work of fiction; especially : novel2 a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b: a useful illusion or pretense3: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

I do not think the people who originally wrote the scriptures believed they imagined or feigned anything fictitious. Especially when the reward for telling any events that involves being good or moral normally resulted in an unpleasant death for the first offense, even if there were witnesses. If you really want to stick religion in something else, try mythology:

(MW) 2: a body of myths: as a: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people.

Other than that, give it a rest people, librarians do not stick religious works in the fiction section, nor should we.Septagram (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I noticed that the article has "Infobox fictional conflict". I thought that religion was not classified as fiction? To classify religion as fiction causes a whole set of problems for a few billion believers in several forms of religion and is most likely meant as an insult. Septagram (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that box was phenomenally lame to have here. Even religious mythology or folklore are not fiction. I've removed it.--Cúchullain t/c 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
the term "fictional" did does not appear in the article anywhere, ignore the fact it's in the code. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It certainly did appear in the infobox until you replaced it with the word "canon". I don't think that's a much better substitute, as it implies the date and estimated number of combatants is part of all these religions' canons. At any rate having an infobox on a war between angels is still incredibly lame (the number of casualties is listed as "unknown"!), and not very useful considering how many different sources and opinions there are. This should be dealt with more like we deal with Noah's Ark than how we deal with the Battle of Yavin.--Cúchullain t/c 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Or like Battle of Fallujah, the infobox provides a place to give the briefest summary (who was fighting, who won, who the leaders of each army were) to the casual reader who doesn't want to wade through paragraphs of text. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that that battle had actual verifiable numbers and occurred in a place in our world, not "heaven". Listing a pope's estimate of the number of angels involved as if it were hard fact (or even a commonly held belief) is misleading and not useful to the reader, nor is the space saying the casualties were "unknown", as if there would be a way for this information to be known. And this is not "canon" information, as the box implies. Again, there are far too many opinions on this subject for such a box to be useful. And there's simply no way to make it useful.--Cúchullain t/c 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed the "Casualties" parameter entirely. If the "number of angels involved" were "common knowledge" this would be a very pointless article indeed - the entire point of it is to collect the obscure facts from history. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
First, the point of any article is not to assemble a collection of obscure facts. Second, this isn't "fact", it's an estimate made by one or two people. You haven't addressed my concern about the word "canon" or how there are a number of other opinions on the subject that are represented in the infobox. The box is just flat useless. I suppose this will require a third opinion or request for comment.--Cúchullain t/c 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
One thing I didn't say yet was that the box is basically original research, assembling together a number of factoids as if they were part of some verifiable whole. That is obviously not appropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] The facts in the box are the commanders of the two armies, which side won, how large each army was, when it took place and where it took place. Now I haven't seen any sources that suggest an alternate number of angels, I haven't seen any sources that suggest it took place somewhere other than Heaven, I haven't seen any sources that suggest someone other than Lucifer and Michael were the commanders, and I haven't seen any sources suggest that the Loyal angels did not win. So exactly which facts do you believe have "a number of other opinions" that contradict them? I don't see any WP:OR, though I would be interested to hear exactly what you think comprises OR in the infobox, and as for the word canon, can't you just go to wikt:canon#Noun? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Silly and inappropriate The information is not so much OR as outdated. Who now believes the date, or the numbers of combatants have any authenticity? Certainly not the Vatican. Remove. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, we're basing this off accuracy? That seems like a silly/dangerous slope applied to religious articles, how many people believe it was literally 313 Muslims at the Battle of Badr? Or that the Battle of Zhuolu's numbers, which are more than twice as "outdated" as this article's references, about a battle that took place in "roughly the same era"? There's absolutely no reason that the historical accuracy of sources should play a role in whether or not to add an infobox to an article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, whilst difficult/controversial/essentially unknowable issues can be addressed in text, an infobox is no place for them. Only unarguable factual information - or very solid traditions - should be included. "Other crap exists" is no argument. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
To repeat what I told Cuchilian, "I haven't seen any sources that suggest an alternate number of angels, I haven't seen any sources that suggest it took place somewhere other than Heaven, I haven't seen any sources that suggest someone other than Lucifer and Michael were the commanders, and I haven't seen any sources suggest that the Loyal angels did not win", so what facts exactly are "argued"? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No modern Catholic theologian would attempt to put a date to the conflict, or give numbers of combatants. Since your only source is a medieval pope, these must be regarded as superceded by ? and ? Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because few people other than a medieval pop have tried to calculate the number of angels in the battle does not mean opinions do not differ. As Johnbod said, no modern Catholic theologian would agree with the number. And I would call this effectively original research by synthesizing material- combining a few medieval scholars' interpretation of the numbers, with some factoids from religious folklore (the leaders of the sides), and giving one side the idiosyncratic title "loyalist angels" and even attributing to them a little flag. This is all presented as "canon" information. As for canon, by any definition of the term it is used incorrectly here (except maybe for the "fandom" definition that appears in Wiktionary and no other dictionary). It needs to go.--Cúchullain t/c 08:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No modern Catholic theologian would claim to have found the "true Cross", "Crown of thorns" or "Spear of Destiny" either - and while we can use terms like "The pope claimed..." or "part of Christian mythology..." to denote the 'dubious' nature of the claims, there's no reason to suggest that the infobox is wrong. I'm not sure why you claim something like Michael/Lucifer being the respective leaders is a "factoid", or dispute the adjective "loyal" as referring to the ones who weren't the ones "rebelling". Effectively, if you can find anyone notable (Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, whatever) who has proposed an alternate leadership, alternate number of angels or alternate turn-out of the battle, then we can remove the current facts from the infobox. But right now those are the only facts that have ever even been claimed to be true - so in the absence of any contradicting evidence, they remain the accepted definition. I'd suggest your time is best spent invested in finding some bishop, mufti or scholar who suggested alternate numbers/leaders - since that would require removing the material in question (since it would no longer be the only number ever put forward). Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear WP:CONCENSUS against it, over a long period. In fact no one else (I think) has said they support it. These arguments were all made last year & we are now just going round in circles. You should accept consencus and acquiesce in its removal. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments. The inclusion of the numbers of combatants on each side is clearly problematic. By including them here, we are in effect indicating that they are the "accepted" numbers, and their is no assertion that the estimates given by the Pope are still considered even remotely accurate. In fact, in most of the comments I have ever seen on the subject, it is "untold" numbers on both sides, so including any numbers would seem to be going against the majority of the sources which deal with the subject. The inclusion of the year is also very much disputed, or at least clearly and almost definitively not supported, by any number of existing sources on the same subject. Inclusion of that specific date is also at best dubious. Lastly, from what little I know of the subject, these infoboxes are intended to be quick summaries of battles in wars involving more than one battle. While in a strictly religious sense most Judeo-Christians would say that there is a major battle for the soul of each human being, I really doubt we're going to be seeing articles on the Battle for the soul of John Carter, Battle for the soul of Sherurcij, Battle for the soul of Johnbod, or Battle for the soul of Cúchullain, so in a sense the infobox doesn't even qualify for inclusion on that basis. Based on all the above, including that the numbers on both sides and timing of the battle are far from agreed upon, and the lack of any preceding or subsequent battles in the war being likely to be included here, I have to think that, while the information might be useful, the infobox itself isn't necessarily useful. Now, if it were to fall into standard usage in articles like Titanomachy and similar articles and these articles on the various "theological conflicts" linked together somehow, maybe, then, there might be a reason to have an infobox here. Even then I'd think it would be possibly more than a bit dubious though. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems consensus is clearly against including the box. It's time to remove it.--Cúchullain t/c 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Cúchullain t/c 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Christian MYTHOLOGY?"

It's not considered a "mainstream" doctrine of Christianity, similar to Joseph of Arimathea's travels to England - it's more "Mythology" than "Belief" in my understanding. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. "Mythology" can be legitimately applied to any number of stories or details which relate to Biblical characters or incidents which aren't described in detail in canonically acceptable sources. Robert Graves and Raphael Patai wrote a whole book collecting such non-canonical stories. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the box "myth box christianity" on the Christian Mythology page, which is intended to clear up the confusion with the words "myth" and "mythology". Could this be useful on this page as well? Quietmarc (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be, and it now is. Thank you very much for the suggestion. :) John Carter (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Padillah's queries

The article claims to discuss a war, but in fact says nothing of the supposed combat. It speaks only of the causes and results of a rebellion of angels against God in prehistoric (very much prehistoric) times, not of any actual war. So the title is misleading.

In fact, I know of no account of the supposed war other than Milton's picturing of it in Book VI of Paradise Lost.

Words that the Bible attributes to the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:13-14 (wrongly cited as "Isaiah 14:12-14) are presented as in fact spoken by Satan, not just attributed to him by adaptation. And the article applies to a supposed past prehistoric war what is said in Revelation 14:7-9 about an apocalyptic future combat between angels at the end of time (after the seventh and final trumpet and events like the sealing of the 144,000).

I have failed to find any reliable source about the supposed book by João Pedro Julião, written during the three years (1273-1276) when he was Cardinal Bishop of Tusculum (Frascati), in which he is said to have declared that the rebel angels were exactly 133,306,668, and that the obedient angels were 266,613,336, making a total of 399,920,004 angels, 79,996 short of 400 million. Nor have I found any indication of the book in which Alfonso de Spina is supposed to have proclaimed the same precise information.

I would like to make the content of this article correspond to that of the Engel(s)sturz section (the main part) of the German article de:Höllensturz, whih is linked with this one, and which is incomparably superior. No wonder the New York Times has said that the German site has the reputation of being the most accurate and carefully watched of the large Wikipedia sites. But I have not dared to replace the original part of the English Wikipedia article that its creator seems to wish to preserve unchanged. I have only added other parts and queried elements of the original.

The title would, of course, have to be changed to something like "Fall of the Rebel Angels". Lima (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slew of new FACT tags

I really don't think it's fair to place {{fact}} after every mention of the word Lucifer to say "It's not established Lucifer and Satan are the same!", or to place it after cited facts to question the citation, or perhaps most oddly, to place it after Bible citations that say "Oh Lucifer, you have..." to say "It's OR to suggest this is about Lucifer". This is not an article about Lucifer, Satan or the possible differences between them in early Sumerian religion - in all the sources of this event, the two names are congrous, and if people want to read about the history of both names, they can read those Wiki articles. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just establish it once with any reliable source, and that problem will be solved. Then try to respond to the other citation requests. For instance, on what source do you base your claim that it was Satan/Lucifer who said the words "I will ascend to Heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High", words that Isaiah attributes instead to the king of Babylon (Is 14:4), that human (Is 14:16) king to whom Isaiah gives (Is 14:12) the title of Morning Star ("הילל" in the original Hebrew, "ἑωσφόρος" in Greek, "lucifer" in Latin - all of which mean "Morning Star", "Daystar", or whatever English name you want to give to the early morning appearance of the planet Venus)? There are several more unsourced statements that need attention. Requests have been made for citations to support them. You may eliminate each request as soon as you answer it. But you cannot just remove the requests and pretend they haven't been made. Lima (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It can't be "established that Lucifer and Satan are the same", it's a matter of personal belief. What, you want me to throw a random papal bull at the top of the article? However, in the context of this article, they are the same. Isaiah attributes the quote to "Lucifer" directly, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!/ For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"(e.a.) whether your OR suggests that's a reference to the planet Venus is irrelevant - he uses the name "Lucifer". I have left the requests for the titles of De Spina and the Pope's writings that allege this (though the fact has been cited), but the rest are spurious at best. "Jesus Christ said[citation needed] that he had been present[citation needed] and saw Lucifer[citation needed]", the citation given at the end of the sentence establishes that it was Jesus speaking, that he was referencing having seen it, and that "it" was Lucifer...how on earth do you put a {{fact}} tag on sentence fragments like that? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles aren't the place for posting personal beliefs. Surely the claim that Lucifer and Satan are the same should be the easiest thing to find a source for. Who says that Isaiah attributes the quote to Satan/Lucifer? Look up Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12, Isaiah 14:12. Lima (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Isaiah says it, again, the quote that is being used in the article is very clear, ""How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!/ For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:" - I'm not sure how you're arguing that this isn't Lucifer when he's addressed by name. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What Isaiah actually said was: "You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ... How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms?'" (Isaiah 12:4-16) Lima (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In which translation/text are you pulling yours from? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The translation above is that of the New Revised Standard Version: just check it: Isaiah 12:4-16. And, if you like, check also the other translations to which I have already directed you: American Standard Version (Isaiah 14:4-16), Young's Literal Translation (Isaiah 14:4-16), New International Version (Isaiah 14:4-16), New Living Translation (Isaiah 14:4-16), English Standard Version (Isaiah 14:4-16), Contemporary English Version (Isaiah 14:4-16), Amplified Bible (Isaiah 14:4-16), New Life Version (Isaiah 14:4-16). There are others also that used English terms for the Daystar instead of its Latin name, but these should be enough for you.
Then check also the translation you yourself have used, the King James Version, which uses the Latin word "Lucifer" (Latin for "Morning Star") to translate the Hebrew word with the same meaning, and you will find that it says all these words were addressed to the king of Babylon (14:4), whom it also refers to as a man (14:16), not an angel. Just check it at Wikisource, which you yourself have used, or simply by clicking on Isaiah 14:4-16. Lima (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other unsourced claims

I welcome discussion on the exact meaning of phrases, and ways to better write that in the article - but that does not belong in "hidden notes" on the article - it belongs on the discussion page - let's focus back here on how to improve what's shown up there. Reach compromise, then add it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is better to deal with one matter at a time. So please deal first with the Isaiah passage. Meanwhile you can start considering what reliable source to quote for the unsupported idea that a third of the angels supported Lucifer, an idea that John Gill says is baseless; and for the similar idea that in Luke 10:18 Jesus was referring to events of "millennia before" and not to the events of that moment that are spoken of immediately before and after verse 18. Lima (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)