Talk:Archangel

"year 0"?

"Satan falling from his position at about the year 0 following a dispute with Michael"

What calendar is being used here? Last I knew, the common western calendar doesn't include a 0 year.

Rav Malach (רב מלאך)= archangel

Amr Ashraf

The archangels in Islam are known to be 7 written on the page, some of them are not written in the Kor'an because not all of the religion is taken from the Kor'an some are taken from al Hadith. In some Hadith's (words spoken by the prophet Muhammed pbuh) there are stories told of these archangels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.204.159.162 (talk • contribs).

arch not harch. Also the γγ is pronounced ng so usually transcribed as such

--2A02:8071:B685:2C00:FDC3:4139:25A7:5E26 (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

"is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."

Medusahead, Refrain from deleting the contributions of others on talk pages or you will be reported for Vandalism. --2A02:8071:B685:2C00:FDC3:4139:25A7:5E26 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, another single purpose IP restored it. The request above was presented in a cryptic enough way in terms of content and form. Please read that guidelines yourself, there are exceptions of the basic rule. And: Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal." I suggest that if you have something to say to me directly, contact me on my talk page.--Medusahead (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory lede

The lead opens with describing archangels as the highest rank in De Coelesti Hierarchia. This is certainly supported by the Biblical passages (i.e. Michael the Archangel leading the heavenly host in battle in Revelation 12:7-10, though of course he's not directly called an archangel there), but this is not a canon work; it's post-biblical. However later in the lede it says the exact opposite: "A common misconception is that archangels constitute the highest rank of angel in Christianity." The source is an 1867 evangelical Methodist magazine, which contains the assertion that the only reliable source is the Bible. I'm guessing this is by a certain Dr. William Cooke, who was a theologian and, judging from his work, an apologist—not exactly a neutral observer or historian. I don't think this really passes the bar for a citable secondary source.

Adding to this issue is that the Hierarchy of angels page contradicts the assertion in the lede. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite puts archangels in the lowest order. How could this all be cleared up? Delukiel (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've restored the old lede text before some no doubt well-meaning idiot changed it. 2nd lowest rank. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Current Version Erroneous and Demonstrably False

This article should not start out with a discussion of the Pseudo-Dionysius' Celestial Hierarchy. Furthermore, it presented this hierarchy as the official view of the Catholic Church. This is simply false and even if it were true why focus on official catholic teaching. This article is highly biased with axes to grind. It should focus on how the Bible and accepted Apocrypha treat archangels and not the ramblings of a 6th century author who was not brave enough to use his own name. Toroid (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it start with Pseudo-Dionysius, exactly? Is there an earlier systematic account of Christian angelology I'm unaware of? In any case, what most puzzled me (and which I should've been clearer about) is opening the entry as if we were a dictionary. I suppose the impulse to do that reads as potentially very rigid in what would be considered an acceptable next draft, but I shouldn't assume that. Thanks for posting here. Remsense 🌈 论 16:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You obviously have a high opinion of Pseudo-Dionysius, but most people coming to this article want info on archangels, not angelic hierarchies. There is already a link to a separate article on angelic hierarchies. Putting this first makes absolutely no sense. Any why the link between Pseudo-Dionysius and Catholicism? First of all this is wrong and second it is irrelevant to most readers. 68.196.68.56 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean—I don't, but to me the whole idea of having an article for a "class of angel" as such would be predicated on mentioning some framework that class exists in. Otherwise, the term would seem to have no clear meaning, especially for a modern reader. Remsense 🌈 论 18:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)