Talk:Gabriel/Archive 2

RfC 1 of 2: Are the following references that provide support for Gabriel's Sex/Gender variance considered reliable sources in this context?
Are the following references that provide support for Gabriel's Sex/Gender variance considered reliable sources in this context? Please comment under each of the references below with supporting or opposing thoughts, or with any comments/suggestions you might have. Your input is extremely appreciated. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

References Supporting Gabriel's Sex/Gender Variance
Below is a list of several sources which seem to support the idea that Gabriel could be male, female, or androgynous.


 * This source asserts that angels are asexual. Elizium23 (talk)
 * Where does this source allegedly assert that Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual? I do not recall this source explicitly stating that Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual. Please provide page numbers. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated source with page numbers and quotations as of 12/7.
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A clearly unreliable blog. Elizium23 (talk)
 * Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No evidence that Aquinas advocated any particular sex of angels from his own writings. Elizium23 (talk)
 * Please see Neutral point of view as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Neutral point of view as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly self-published. Fails WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk)
 * Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that fact alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Verifiability, NPOV, including RNPOV, DUE, BALASPS, MNA, as well as RNPOV and NPOVFAQ. Under the ‘’About’’ section of his Scribd.com profile page, the author of this article describes himself as ‘'"An independent scholar and essayist now, taught Latin and philosophy, and worked as a cultural journalist; published essays, verse and fiction, in Italian or in English.”’’ Verification of this can be found by visiting this link. Additional information about this author can also be located on his Academia.edu website, which can be accessed using this link. I believe that given the author’s educational and career background, the manner by which his article came to be published is of relatively minor significance. He is clearly an example of a reliable source. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is any assertion given about the sex of angels? Elizium23 (talk)
 * This reference was included to provide alternative interpretations to certain passages in the Book of Daniel. Previous discussion concerning these passages in the Book of Daniel, along with related discussion on the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This reference was included to provide alternative interpretations to certain passages in the Book of Daniel. Previous discussion concerning these passages in the Book of Daniel, along with related discussion on the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No evidence that Aquinas advocated any particular sex of angels from his own writings. Elizium23 (talk)
 * Please see Neutral point of view as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Neutral point of view as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)




 * A quote is necessary to see if this author himself provided any analysis of Aquinas' writings, which did not in themselves address the sex of the angels. Elizium23 (talk)
 * I provided the necessary quotes in the course of my previous explanations, located under the section Talk:Gabriel. Also, please see Neutral point of view as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided the necessary quotes in the course of my previous explanations, located under the section Talk:Gabriel. Also, please see Neutral point of view as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Questionable reliability Elizium23 (talk)
 * I understand your point Elizium23, but I still disagree. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to add this source, previously introduced by Macrakis on 19:17, 29 November 2013, into our discussion. I have no objections to this source, per se, other than to comment that not having read the text yet myself, judging from the title I'm inclined to wonder if it would be more appropriate supporting another statement under the section on Gabriel rather than as a supporting source to the current statement under the section on Gabriel. Either way, assuming good faith, I have no objections to the use of this source. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to add this source, previously introduced by Macrakis on 19:17, 29 November 2013, into our discussion. I have no objections to this source, per se, other than to comment that not having read the text yet myself, judging from the title I'm inclined to wonder if it would be more appropriate supporting another statement under the section on Gabriel rather than as a supporting source to the current statement under the section on Gabriel. Either way, assuming good faith, I have no objections to the use of this source. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to introduce this source into our discussion as well. I discovered this source under the section on Islam where it is already listed as a reference in relation to something there. This reference comes from a Peer Reviewed Academic Journal. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to introduce this source into our discussion as well. This source supports my claim that angels (such as Gabriel) have been thought of as androgynous beings, possessing a prefect wholeness of both maleness and femaleness, rather than a divided male or female sex/gender. I should also point out that the source says Theologians, not Christian Theologians, therefore I believe that this source also provides support for my assertion that the statement at the beginning of the article should be about Gabriel's sex/gender in general, rather than about what any specific religion or religious denomination believes or doesn't believe. Specifics on religious beliefs belong under the religion's own category. General, introductory-type statements--such as the one that I wrote--belong in the introductory part of the article.
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to introduce this source into our discussion as well. It contains a large collection of religious art, and not just of Gabriel. Combined with the examples that can easily be found by searching through Commons:Category:Gabriel,  Commons:Category:Depictions of Gabriel as female or androgynous also contains an even more numerous number of examples of religious iconography where Gabriel is clearly depicted as either female or androgynous. This book, along with the 2 Wiki Commons categories, clearly supports my previous claim. Crice88 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated source with page numbers and quotes (pictures are also on these page numbers). Crice88 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hay House is a self-publishing house. Fails WP:RS Elizium23 (talk)
 * Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Verifiability, NPOV, including RNPOV, DUE, BALASPS, MNA, as well as RNPOV and NPOVFAQ. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Verifiability, NPOV, including RNPOV, DUE, BALASPS, MNA, as well as RNPOV and NPOVFAQ. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Added source with page numbers and quotations 12/7. Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Verifiability, NPOV, including RNPOV, DUE, BALASPS, MNA, as well as RNPOV and NPOVFAQ. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Angel Focus is a self-publishing house. Fails WP:RS Elizium23 (talk)
 * Although Angel Focus Interfaith Ministry might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors). Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Verifiability, NPOV, including RNPOV, DUE, BALASPS, MNA, as well as RNPOV and NPOVFAQ. The Angel Focus Interfaith Ministry clearly attributes its content to it’s author, Rev. Annette Young, who, by virtue of the salutation '’Rev. or Reverend’’, a salutation which provides much validation as this is the website for the ministry she apparently works with and contributes to. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Most of these sources are unreliable. What's the point in commenting on unreliable sources that can't even be used on Wikipedia?  Clean up the RfC, remove the unreliable sources, and then maybe you'll get some more comments.  In any event, I think that I agree with all of Elizium23's comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC 2 of 2: Do the following statements concerning Gabriel's sex/gender variance meet the neutral point of view requirements?
Do the following statements concerning Gabriel's sex/gender variance meet the neutral point of view requirements? Please first read the section Talk:Gabriel and then provide any supporting or opposing comments, along with any comments/suggestions you might have. Your input is extremely appreciated. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already voiced my position on the proposed addition and the sources thereof. It does not help your case to be WP:Wikilawyering and supplying WP:Walls of text to try and bolster your case. It is even less favorable when you accuse other editors like me of a conflict of interest here; it is difficult for me not to take that as a personal attack. You are concentrating on NPOV and the niceties thereof when you should be reading about verifiability, original research, and reliable secondary sources instead. I stand by my objections to the unreliable sources you propose. Now I appreciate your efforts towards dispute resolution but opening two RFCs at once with such a muddy discussion page already is not going to help matters. I see that almost three days have gone by with zero additional participants in the discussion. I think people are coming here and scared off by all the hot air, frankly. Your attempts to minimize our objections are misguided and show your willingness to engage in original research in order to make your point. Just stick to what sources say, reliable sources, and everything will be fine. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do not see why we should be wasting time for this fringe bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not use profanity on Wikipedia--its offensive. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Crice88, as to your substantive arguments, the Christian theological literature is chock-full of statements that angels are "pure spirits", "without material bodies distinguished by sex", "sexless", "asexual", etc. You yourself cite Aquinas as saying they are "pure spirits", yet somehow manage to interpret this as saying that angels can be of various sexes. The situation may be different in ancient Judaism, where angels appear to be unambiguously male (Florentino Garcia Martinez, Between Philology and Theology: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Jewish Interpretation, Brill 2012, p. 17); I don't know what the modern Jewish position is (or if there is one). Martinez contrasts this with the New Testament, which "insists on the spiritual nature of angelic beings, who are portrayed as asexual." p. 20 (with citations from Matthew, Mark, and Luke).


 * Practically speaking, as Elizium23 says, you're deploying a bunch of irritating tactics which really aren't helping, especially since no one else appears to agree with you. --Macrakis (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You've mentioned twice now that I'm alone, a statement which seems to beg the question whether you've taken the time to read the second sentence of the Consensus article which specifically states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote". In other words, whether I'm alone or not alone is completely irrelevant--what is relevant is the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. (see Consensus and Closing discussions)
 * Under the Reaching consensus through discussion section, the article specifically states "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Just in-case it isn't obvious, this is precisely what I've been trying to do. I'm sorry if you believe that these discussions are nothing but a bunch of irritating tactics, however this is part of the consensus-building process.
 * So far I've responded in great detail to the previously raised concerns over neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, including reliable sources. On the other hand, your arguments have largely consisted only of assertions that my sources are not reliable (which I then not only responded to but then I also added additional, more reliable sources that only made my argument all the stronger) or assertions stating that I'm alone. In other words, I've provided reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. You've argued that my sources are not reliable because they're not reliable (which isn't going to fly) and have stated that I'm out-numbered (which also isn't going to fly).
 * Seeing as how so far I believe that I've fulfilled (and I plan on continuing to fulfill) my obligation to respond to any valid, reasonable objections as to my choice of reliable and verifiable sources, (and for the record assertions that my sources are not reliable because they're not reliable isn't a valid or reasonable objection), unless another user contributes a far-stronger contradictory argument than the ones that have been raised thus far, I plan on adding my original edit back into the introduction section of the article. I believe such actions on my part would be justified and supported under the Consensus guidelines.
 * I don't see any reason to fight over your edit under the section on Gabriel, however I will point out that if your Brill source by Florentino Garcí Martínez is about Judaism, then I'm sort of confused as to why you didn't add something under the section on Gabriel in addition to Christianity. Other than Aquinas, the other sources that I provided did not specifically make mention of Christianity. A few of them mentioned Theologians, but not specifically Christian Theologians. I haven't read your Brill source by Florentino Garcí Martínez yet so for now, assuming good faith, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however I really think additional sources on specifically Christian Theologians would better support your statement under the section on Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, now you're just edit-warring for your preferred revisions. You started an RFC in good faith to resolve this dispute, and so far every editor who has weighed in has rightly objected to your proposals and I, in particular, tore apart your list of supposedly-reliable sources, pointing out that they do not comply with the Wikipedia policies you keep citing. Now you have added 21,232 bytes to the article in less than two hours. I am sorry but that is just SPAM. Please slow down and allow the consensus to develop. You currently have no right to add this to the article until you succeed in winning the argument here on talk. Elizium23 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor note: Added bullet point to 13:49, 4 December 2013 edit to facilitate clarity and easier reading. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't tear apart any list. Please read my responses to your comments under each of the references listed above, along with Consensus and Closing discussions. You're ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning how the dispute resolution process works and wrongly assuming that your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the only correct interpretations.
 * Consensus isn't reached just because a few people agree with you. Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Crice88 continued their POV pushing on Wikidata, where they added info that Gabriel is female and seven sources. I am now going to revert their edits as fringe.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you’re mistaken on which ideas qualify as Fringe. Assertions that Gabriel is exclusively male must be backed up with reliable sources.
 * Multiple sources have been provided which clearly document that Gabriel can be interpreted as either female or androgynous, however no sources have been provided which clearly document that Gabriel can be interpreted as exclusively male. Therefore, since Wikipedia requires that all article content be Verifiable and not based on original research, in following Editing policy we’d have to remove all exclusive male gender labels because "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable.” Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Partial article content dispute discussion took place between Elizium23, Macrakis, and Crice88 on Crice88’s talk page, under section Gabriel's Sex/Gender. Please keep all future article content dispute discussions on this talk page only. Multiple talk pages are too confusing. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Created "Formal warning" under "Gabriel's Sex/Gender" section on Elizium23's talk page, Macrakis's talk page, and Ymblanter's talk page concerning Edit warring and vandalism. Please keep all article content dispute discussions on this talk page only. Multiple talk pages are too confusing. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest that you read the policies before adding this material not supported by reliable sources any further, otherwise you are likely to be taken to WP:ANI and topic-banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and one more thing you do not understand is what vandalism is. Removing fringe material is not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When the content is backed up by 19 sources, and at least 10-12 of them are definitely reliable, especially with religious art that literally goes back hundreds of years, no way is it fringe. I've read what vandalism is on Wikipedia's vandalism page. It's "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." When items are under dispute and even tagged with in-text dispute tags, I think that's "compromising the integrity of Wikipedia" by violating NPOV and pretending there isn't an active dispute. I've provided so much explanation and have continually added more and more sources. It's quite obvious that the real issue is that you guys just don't agree with what's being said so you're trying to prevent it from being used. I seriously don't get it because in doing this you're going against the very spirit and purpose of pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for and exists to do. You're trying to censor a mainstream, perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Censorship isn't right. Crice88 (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem really is that you are a new editor and try to add fringe views to the article. To support these views, you brought a large number of non-reliable sources. You failed to gain consensus and then started to edit-war. Really, you are the only one defending this view. Furthermore, you accused one of the editors in having conflict of interest. Now, still failing to gain consensus, you started to accuse us in not really understanding the spirit of Wikipedia. Well, for a brand new single-purpose editor this is not a very clever policy. However, you just forget that if you want these fringe views to be added to the article it is your responsibility to forget that they are fringe and that they are based on reliable sources (i.e. that sources are reliable). So far, you failed to do this, and thus failed to gain consensus to add them to the article. Concerning vandalism, please read it again: It clearly says that what was done is not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter, I accused Elizium23 of a conflict of interest because I genuinely believed that there was a strong likelihood that this was the case. I stand corrected because another user on the noticeboard corrected me by briefly why this wasn't the case. I don't make a habit of accusing anyone, either in real life or online of having a conflict of interest unless I really genuinely believe that there's bias that's unexplainable any other way. When I'm wrong or mistaken I can admit it. I'm an adult. On the other hand, when I feel like I'm being bullied into accepting something that I know isn't right, I'm going to speak up. Can you please explain whether the fact that there are no sources, either reliable or not reliable, which support the idea of an exclusively male Gabriel doesn't violate Verifiability or Verifiability, not truth in your opinion? Is the assertion that Gabriel is allegedly exclusively male is ok to be unsourced? And what sources can you offer that support your claim that the idea of a female or androgynous Gabriel is fringe? According to WP:FRINGE, you need to demonstrate that mainstream scholarship in the field of something like angelology does not support such an idea. It's not about what you believe is mainstream or true, its about what you can back up with sources. To say that something is fringe, you have to demonstrate not only that it's not "broadly supported by scholarship in its field" but also "sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea" in relation "to the mainstream idea". Its right there on WP:FRINGE in the first paragraph. As I said before, you're clearly not following Wikipedia dispute policies or even the editing policies. See Verifiability and Verifiability, not truth. Crice88 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: sources for male. English does not have genders, but many other languages do, including Greek. There is a vast amount of Theological literature about Gabriel on these languages, and it is pretty clear from the grammar to start with that all this literature mentions Gabriel in male gender. For example, the Russian translation of the Gospel of Lucas (1.26) says "послан был Ангел Гавриил", which is clear indication of male gender. Female would be "послана была Ангел Гавриил".--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Greek or Russian so obviously I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, of course, to use the language itself to argue an exclusive male gender isn't flawless by far. There are many people who have gender variant or gender neutral names in English, such as Sam, Reagan, Skylar, Sage, Quinn, Alex, etc. Also, I know that of the languages that have explicit genders, those genders aren't always consistent from one language to another, whether we're talking about animate being or inanimate things. So, while I certainly see your point, I don't think language, including Gabriel's own name, really meets the criteria that WP:FRINGE is looking for. Crice88 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

<- For what's worth, "Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's...gender" strikes me as a bit of an odd way of putting it, even coming as it does after the preceeding sentence and being followed by "in both art and literature", given that there obviously isn't any actual evidence that Gabriel existed, let alone had a gender. The phrasing of that sentence seems to suggest, at least to me, that the information available is evidence of gender as opposed to just being examples of a particular interpretation. That's probably not its intent I assume.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point, although technically there's no evidence to suggest that God or Gods exists either, so the various interpretations are sort of all there is. The second sentence came as a result of the first one sounding even stranger when it was by itself. The second sentence sort of served a duel purpose of supporting the first sentence but also briefly elaborating on it in a general way. Do you think it could be improved or worded better? Crice88 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How about "descriptions and depictions" or something like that ? Perhaps looking at how information is presented in the Ardhanarishvara article might help.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

{outdent} I moved your orphaned comment here from End notes {reflist} section &mdash;Telpardec 08:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Quran says that Gabriel appeared before Mary the mother of Jesus "as a man in all respects." Gabriel is also described as a handsome beardless young man with curly hair and a pure face. Some traditions have Gabriel appearing the form of Joseph, Mary's companion. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Gender issue re-visited 2013
I have placed all of the discussions concerning the difference in opinion over the sex/gender of Gabriel under this header because it seems to be an ongoing discussion. I believe that by grouping together the previous discussions it may help to facilitate a clearer picture of the arguments presented and thus help us move forward toward resolving the disagreement.

From what I can gather from the previous discussions, most of the arguments against an androgynous Gabriel or female Gabriel seem to be predicated upon particular biblical passages such those from the Book of Daniel. The basic argument appears to be that if the Book of Daniel refers to Gabriel as man, then Gabriel must therefore be male. The Christian Bible, therefore, seems to be the only source that has been cited to support the view that Gabriel is a male. The citations that I've provided above would seem to support the idea that Gabriel could be male, female, or androgynous. In fact, according to James R. Lewis and Evelyn Dorothy Oliver, authors of Angels A to Z (2008):


 * Angels are perceived as either male or female by people who feel they have actually seen them or feel that they have a guardian angel. Theologians, on the other hand, have usually considered angels to be androgynous, or to be neither distinctly male nor female, but to combine maleness and femaleness in perfect wholeness. … Artists commonly portray angels without distinct sexuality, sometimes portraying them in a prepubescent human form. The only angel commonly thought to be of the female, however, is the archangel Gabriel, who is commonly depicted with decidedly feminine features.

Eileen Elias Freeman, author of the 1994 book Touched By Angels seems to agree, stating:


 * ...angelic genders are so totally unlike the two we know on Earth that we just can't recognize the concept in angels. Some philosophers have even speculated that every angel is a specific gender, a different physical and spiritual orientation to life.

There are many different translations of the Christian Bible, and not all Christian denominations recognize the same biblical texts as being an official part of the Christian Biblical Canon. For these reasons I believe that it is important to have more sources than just the Christian Bible. I believe that the citations provided above provide ample evidence that Gabriel could be male, female, or androgynous.

I would also like to respectfully point out that Wikipedia's policy on editing from a Neutral Point of View clearly states


 * Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.


 * "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.


 * Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * *Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
 * *Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Seeing as how the referenced citations seems to disagree on whether Gabriel is male, female, or androgynous, it would seem to me that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy resolves the issue by requiring that multiple viewpoints on Gabriel's sex/gender be presented in a clear and unbiased manner.

All of this being taken into account, I would therefore like to suggest the creation of a new section entitled something along the lines of Gabriel's Sex/Gender, which would briefly explain the different points of view. I will continue to search for additional sources to support Gabriel's gender variance, however seeing as how the one and only source that has been provided thus far supporting the view that Gabriel is explicitly male has been the Christian Bible, I believe that providing these additional views should be permitted as multiple sources (provided above) support the legitimacy of Gabriel's gender variance. Any other thoughts? Crice88 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I added additional sources to the list above dated 10 October 2013. I also would like to also briefly point out that I believe Christian Theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica Treatise on the Angels’’, Question 51: Angels and Bodies’’ provides further support for the possibility of an androgynous or female Gabriel as well.


 * Author Paul J. Glenn in his 1978 book "A Tour of the Summa" summarizes Aquinas's conclusions from "Question 51: Angels and Bodies" as follows:

"Angels have no bodies. An intellectual nature (that is, a substantial essence equipped for understanding and willing) does not require a body. In man, because the body is substantially united with the spiritual soul, intellectual activities (understanding and willing) presuppose the body and its senses. But an intellect in itself, or as such, requires nothing bodily for its activity. The angels are pure spirits without a body, and their intellectual operations of understanding and willing depend in no way at all upon material substance."  "That the angels sometimes assume bodies is known from Holy Scripture. Angels appeared in bodily form to Abraham and his household; the angel Raphael came in the guise of a young man to be the companion of the younger Tobias."  "In bodies thus assumed, angels do not actually exercise the functions of true bodily life. When an angel in human form walks and talks, he exercises angelic power and uses the bodily organs as instruments. But he does not make the body live, or make it his own body."  


 * Aquinas's theology therefore supports the idea that Gabriel, since he/she is an Angel, can be either male, female or androgynous. When in his/her regular, spiritual form, it could reasonably be assumed that Gabriel could be perceived as having taken on the role of any gender. Likewise, if Gabriel was to take on a physical form, such as that of a man or a woman, then Gabriel's gender would then reflect his/her physical body. Aquinas’s theory demonstrates that there has been support for the possibility of an androgynous or female Gabriel in Christian Theology since at least 1265–1274 A.D. when Thomas Aquinas authored his Summa Theologica. Crice88 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Aquinas says that angels are "pure spirits without a body". Doesn't that imply that they are asexual (neither male nor female), not that they are androgynous (both male and female). cf. Matthew 22:30 "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." On the other hand, there is one interpretation of the Nephilim story, ....


 * Yes, NPOV does say that we should report on "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". What it does not say is that we should report on "all the views that have been published anywhere". A report of bigfoot in the National Enquirer or a mass-market paperback is different from one in the Journal of Wildlife Research. Piling on many low-quality sources including blogs and about.com pages is not helpful. Can we find any scholars (theologians, art historians, ...) who characterize Gabriel as female, or who say that Gabriel is "depicted with feminine features"? --Macrakis (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read each of the 15 references/citations I posted above? None of these references/citations are even remotely comparable to the National Enquirer. A couple of Blogspot.com articles or About.com pages certainly would not make this statement any less valid--especially in light of the fact that the total number of sources was fifteen overall. The majority of the references/citations were from books, books that were authored by individuals who had done research on this topic and that were published by legitimate, major publishing companies. The reason I included the Blogspot.com articles and About.com pages was because they show that some people believe in angels (and also have certain views on angels) but might not necessarily belong to any Christian church or believe in any form of Christianity. Not everyone in the world is Christian. Not all Christians share the same beliefs.


 * There was a time that many people in the world (Christian world, I might add) believed that the Earth was flat. Just because a certain view might be popular opinion in a certain place or during a certain time does not automatically infer that such opinion constitutes the same thing as truth. It was, after all, the Christian Church who taught (and thus also published these teachings) that the Earth was flat. During the Renaissance the Christian Church would have been considered a much more valid source than either Copernicus or Galileo, which is obviously why even after Galileo was able to provide evidence for his claims that the Earth was in-fact round, there were still many people who believed the old teaching.


 * My point is that just because an author chooses to convey or explain certain ideas on websites such as Blogspot.com or About.com, it doesn't automatically render the author's ideas any less valid. Moreover, just because some people believe an idea to be more mainstream than other ideas, that doesn't automatically make that idea any more valid or correct. Additionally, all religious/spiritual beliefs are merely beliefs. So far, no one has been able to come up with a scientific approach to either prove or disprove the existence of God. The bible isn't science. It's belief. That doesn't means that it wrong, but it doesn't mean that it's the same as scientific truth either. Just because some people have managed to published their beliefs using big, well-known publishing companies, doesn't mean that their beliefs are necessarily any more valid than someone who chooses to share his or her beliefs on a website, even if that website happened to be a website like Blogspot.com or About.com. Wikipedia's policy on editing from a Neutral Point of View is intended to ensure that multiple viewpoints can be shared in a fair, just, and non-biased manner. I chose the language I did because I believed it was fair, just, and non-biased.


 * Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous.       Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's female or androgynous gender can be found in both art and literature.   


 * I stated that "Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous." I didn't take sides, I simply presented the facts along with the necessary citations. I then added the following sentence "Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's female or androgynous gender can be found in both art and literature." Again, I didn't take sides, I simply presented the facts along with the necessary citations. I intentionally did not mention Christianity or any other specific religion or religious denomination because these two sentences were more about Gabriel, and less about the specific beliefs of any one religion. In my opinion, the sentences "Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual, and they are generally depicted in art with prepubescent features. Some recent popular works on angels consider Gabriel to be female or androgynous." violates Wikipedia's policy on editing from a Neutral Point of View because they place Christian theological ideas over the ideas of non-Christians. Although the second sentence does expand further than the first sentence, I believe it nevertheless still falls short of the clear requirements set forth in Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. Therefore, I believe the edit should be reverted. Crice88 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You are alone. The proposed additions violate WP:RS and are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia documents all legitimate points of view. Please find reliable secondary sources first and then make the edits and we will consider them. Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Crice88, I think you are misinterpreting both WP:NPOV and WP:RS; you might also want to take a look at the essays WP:TRUTH and WP:UNDUE. Personally, I take no position at all on whether angels in general and Gabriel in particular are male, female, both, or neither. I just want the article to accurately reflect the significant viewpoints on the topic, giving appropriate weight to the various positions. Saying "Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous" does not give any indication of the relative prominence of these different positions. It's like saying "The earth is considered to be flat or spheroidal." without mentioning that all scientific evidence is that it is spheroidal. Saying that "mainstream Christianity considers angels to be asexual" is about as WP:NPOV as it gets -- it is a statement you can agree with even if you disagree with mainstream Christianity.


 * About the sources, of course a self-published pamphlet can be just as correct as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But WP policy says that we rely on reliable sources. Websites and blogs are rarely reliable sources. Self-published material is rarely a reliable source. Even published books are not inherently reliable sources. And many of the sources you mention don't actually say anything specific about the sex or non-sex of Gabriel; tendentious interpretation is original research and not suitable for publication in WP.


 * I repeat my query: can you find any reputable scholarly works in theology or art history arguing that Gabriel is female or androgynous? One solid source is worth more than dozens of weak ones. --Macrakis (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Elizium23 and Macrakis,


 * Can one of you please provide several reliable sources to support your assertions that I am "alone" in the belief that Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous?
 * Can one of you please answer how can I be "alone" in a certain belief, when I'm not contributing what I believe or don't believe, but rather I'm contributing what the numerous reliable and verifiable cited sources seem to support?
 * If you insist on denying the credibility of the Blogspot.com article and the About.com page, can one of you please explain why you believe the other thirteen published sources are not reliable? The more detailed and specific you can be, the better.
 * Can one of you please provide several reliable sources that lend support to your statement "Saying that "mainstream Christianity considers angels to be asexual" is about as WP:NPOV as it gets -- it is a statement you can agree with even if you disagree with mainstream Christianity."?
 * Can one of you please provide several reliable sources to support your view that the beliefs of mainstream Christianity include a teaching that that Gabriel is either male or asexual?
 * Can one of you please provide several reliable sources to support your view that Gabriel is either male or asexual (in a non-Christian or non-denominational context)?
 * Can one of you please provide several reliable sources to support your view that Gabriel should be referred to with male gender pronouns?


 * According to TRUTH, "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)."


 * How do you justify the exclusive use of male gender pronouns in the article itself when there have been no reliable sources referenced to provide support for the exclusive use of male gender pronouns?
 * How is it that you chose to overlook the undue, clearly biased weight of the article itself to the notion of a strictly male Gabriel?
 * How is it that you justify the removal of two neutral, verifiable sentences that were carefully worded in order to not give undue weight to any particular view over that of another (i.e., that Gabriel is strictly male, or strictly female, or strictly androgynous)?
 * How is it that you justify deleting these two sentences, "Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous." and "Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's female or androgynous gender can be found in both art and literature.", sentences that were supported with thirteen reliable, published sources (or eleven, depending on how you chose to count them)?


 * So far, I have presented what I believe to be thirteen reliable, published sources which support the assertion that Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous. I've already explained above in extensive detail why I believe the Blogspot.com article and the About.com page constitute reliable sources. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that I withdrew this claim. Even if we disregard these two articles, that still leaves eleven reliable, published sources that support the assertion that Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous. How then do you justify ignoring each of these additional eleven reliable, published sources? How is the deletion of these two neutral, verifiable sentences, along with the supporting thirteen (or eleven) reliable, published sources not an act of extreme bias or even vandalism? Crice88 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit did not include any of the above that might be reliable sources, it included several clearly invalid sources. I would be interested to see quotes from the books and other offline resources that are being cited here. Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Crice88, I believe that when Elizium23 said you were "alone", he meant on this Talk page. cf. WP:CON
 * As for the mainstream Christian position that angels do not have a sex, NPOV clearly says that we should represent it -- as long as it is clearly identified as such. You yourself brought in a good source for this, namely Aquinas, who calls angels "pure spirit". I believe it is also the mainstream Muslim and Jewish position, but I don't have good sources for that.
 * It is less clear what to do with the various claims you mention. The uncharitable might call them WP:FRINGE, but it appears that these are not completely isolated positions. They appear to be New Age claims. Perhaps we should mark them as such?
 * As for the quality of the sources, I agree with Elizium23's comments above, and plan to remove the inappropriate sources. --Macrakis (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Elizium23 and Macrakis, I maintain my position that your edit distorts Gabriel’s gender variance through a process of biased minimalization by describing it as ‘’recent’’ and as supported only in popular works’’, while also making an un-supported, un-cited, biased assertion concerning Mainstream Christian theology’’. How have you not inappropriately used these sources to support your own personal point-of-view? How have you not violated Verifiability, NPOV, including RNPOV, DUE, BALASPS, MNA, as well as RNPOV and NPOVFAQ? How have you not violated NPOVFAQ by supporting sexism?
 * I’ve attempted to abide by Assume good faith. I’ve tried understanding ‘’why'’ you've disagreed with my edit that I believe fairly, proportionately, and, without bias, represented each of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of Gabriel’s gender—which clearly supported the assertion that Gabriel can be perceived equally as either male, female, or androgynous. I feel that your response to this inquiry has continued to remain elusive.
 * Can you please clarify why you believe that your edit which stated "Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual, and they are generally depicted in art with prepubescent features. Some recent popular works on angels consider Gabriel to be female or androgynous." is more fairly, proportionately, and, without bias, represented each of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of Gabriel’s gender than my initial statement which stated "Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous. Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's female or androgynous gender can be found in both art and literature."? Is your sole argument based on the specific references that were cited, or is there more to it than that?
 * With respect, I feel obligated to ask whether you have considered the possibility that you might have a Conflict of Interest in this matter? If so, Conflict of interest and Best practices for editors with close associations have information that you might find helpful.
 * I would have no objection to your statement "Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual, and they are generally depicted in art with prepubescent features" being included under the section on Gabriel, assuming that you can come up with acceptable references to support this claim.
 * In response to Macrakis's previous comment regarding alleged New Age claims, I respectfully disagree that these are New Age claims and therefore object to their classification as such without proper references backing up that viewpoint. Also, in response to Macrakis's previous comment regarding deletion, I believe that I have fulfilled my burden of establishing verifiability and reliability after having been challenged pursuant to Neutral point of view/FAQ, and therefore I believe that any deletion would be unjustified, particularly in light of the fact that the challenges that I’ve raised on Elizium23’s edits have yet to be answered.
 * As far as artistic examples that support a male, female, or androgynous Gabriel, Commons:Category:Gabriel contains several examples of religious iconography where Gabriel is clearly depicted as either female or androgynous.
 * I think Requests for comment might be the best way to try and resolve our disagreement on these issues. I'm going to initiate a RFC for each of the two issues that we currently seem to be in dispute over, 1) the reliability of the sources (WP:Reliable), and 2) Whether the wording of my statement concerning Gabriel's sex/gender variance meets the neutral point of view requirements (WP:NPOV).
 * Lastly, until we can build a better consensus from the wiki community, I'll to leave your edit as it is, however I'm going to add a tag. I would ask that this tag be left in-place until a better consensus can be reached. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor note: Added bullet points to 04:15, 26 November 2013 edit to facilitate clarity and easier reading. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the artistic examples that can easily be located by browsing through Commons:Category:Gabriel,  Commons:Category:Depictions of Gabriel as female or androgynous also contains numerous examples of religious iconography where Gabriel is clearly depicted as either female or androgynous. Therefore, clearly this is not just some random, unsupported  fringe or new age phenomenon. Crice88 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor note: Added bullet points to 16:01, 26 November 2013 edit to facilitate clarity and easier reading. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A. Re Diane Alquist, author of White Light: the Complete Guide to Spells and Rituals for Psychic Protection: despite the oft repeated phrase "Previous discussion concerning the credibility ...." I have been unable to locate any particular credentials apart from her being a self-proclaimed "third generation psychic". The statement "This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel" is not supported by Ms Alquist's statement above that "I subscribe to the notion that angels are without gender." p.53. Nonetheless, this is not RS. B. The seemingly anonymous "AngelGabriel.blogspot.com" is not RS. C. Aquinas states "Angels have no bodies." Please explain how one derives gender absent a body. A distinction should apparently be drawn between what angels are/are not and how they are sometimes depicted. Malcolm Godwin is an architect and painter who may speak to artistic representations, but does not appear to be an authority in angelology. Same goes for Pino Blasone. Lewis and Oliver, and Ronner both use the phrase "...combine maleness and femaleness within itself in a prefect wholeness." Who is copying from whom? Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lewis and Oliver (2008 p.156) version appears to be an extract from Ronner (1993) or possibly an earlier common source. (Quotes from both appear in the earlier RfC 1 of 2 section above.) BTW: the Lewis &amp; Oliver source is one of the first General References in this article. —Telpardec TALK  09:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor note: Added "End notes" sub-section in this section to keep references with the section when it is archived. &mdash;Telpardec 01:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

End notes


Error with Milton Book Attribution
Hello, I noticed an error in the attribution of a line from Milton's Paradise Lost to Book IX, when it is actually in book XI. The line number is correct. I fixed it just now, but since I do not have a Wiki account I fear that it will be reversed. Can someone who has authority to make edits double check this reference and verify that the change is correct. The edit was made to citation 14. Thank you!

144.82.179.25 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit looks good. Nobody should have a reason to revert it, we will trust your judgement on this. And thank you for the correction! Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Strong Association with Saint Peter
By induction from the Scriptures and the common unauthorized narratives, Gabriel has a strong association with St. Peter, and visa versa. I can't cite anything, unfortunately, but consider that it is common belief (you may have heard) that Gabriel guards the pearly gates, the Gates of Heaven, and Peter, in juxtaposition, holds the Keys of Heaven, given to him by Jesus, and in the common narrative prospective inductees always meet St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven. idk, maybe they're both there... maybe they share the work in shifts, or maybe they're the same person and an artist formerly of the band Genesis. Regardless, unless its some sacred secret, someone with references maybe ought to write a section with some indunction and conjecture concerning the existence of a strong association with St. Peter. --- me again... here is something interesting: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archangel_Gabriel_and_St._Peter,_Royal_Doors.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.45.219 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

II Revelation
There have been some edits to this article including information about a document entitled II Revelation. This does not appear to be a reliable source to me and so I have removed the content. /wia 🎄 /tlk 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gabriel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140428164859/http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/gabriel357902.shtml to http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/gabriel357902.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Languages and references.
There is some confusion about the necessity of variety in wikipedia sources. Particularly, some users have arbitrarily decided to extirpate source languages other than Hebrew or Greek. There is an unmistakeable aspect of racism within that vile misbehavior. Particularly, it is incorrect in the modern context of archaeological findings from the Roman Calendar years 0-300, during which time original source material is written in Aramaic, Amharic, or Geez. There is a consensus among scholars that the old testaments of Greek and Hebrew are technically translations. Particularly, ample omissions and ambiguous bifurcations of literal meaning abound in the original Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, I recommend that a temporary moratorium be placed on deletions within this article, until agreement can be reached with respect to the diversity and accuracy of Wikipedia. In particular, any contribution other than vandalism should not be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJennings1989 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is the reference showing Gabriel is specifically an archangel?
I am reading lots of information about Gabriel being mentioned in this book and that, but no references stating that he is an archangel. Can somebody provide their links to the sources that make these assumptions, or edit their comments so that they are correct? For instance, it is only Michael in the Bible who is called an archangel specifically. Also, the claim that Gabriel is called an archangel in the Book of Enoch is incorrect. The only archangel again specifically mentioned in that book is again Michael, although when mentioning him, it says he is "one of the archangels". Still, it does NOT say that Gabriel is an archangel, leading to the presumption that the four angels mentioned are archangels, but not stated. Thanks.118.209.105.2 (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Van Helsing
Van Helsing is on the face of it human, not an angel. But I found the same claim in IMDb. So I restored it as a possible interpretation. There are however lots of people called Gabriel, see Gabriel (name). --GwydionM (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gabriel. 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/20120521190231/http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj082102.asp to http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj082102.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.avbtab.org/rc/read/dedicate.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116121237/http://baltimoreguide.com/http%3A/baltimoreguide.com/little-italy-celebrates-the-feast-of-saint-gabriel-in-style/ to http://baltimoreguide.com/http%3A/baltimoreguide.com/little-italy-celebrates-the-feast-of-saint-gabriel-in-style/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel. 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/20070928014848/http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=July&day=13&Go.x=6&Go.y=12 to http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=July&day=13&Go.x=6&Go.y=12

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Noah = Gabriel
Two passages about the LDS Church were removed, with edit summary, "Not commonly believed". It is not necessary for a doctrine to be "commonly believed" for a church to teach it, and the LDS are no exception. It is properly cited to two reliable secondary sources that support the text, so I have restored both passages. Elizium23 (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Which Reference?
I have issue with the reference to Yoma 79A. I just read Yoma 79A and see no mention of Gabriel. Am I missing something, or is that reference just completely wrong? Clever_Kellom 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonata Vox Gabrieli
Added a short bit about the Vox Gabrieli by Sulek. I think this is probably one of the most important music references. Are there any Trombone nerds out there that know more about this piece?

in the section where u say gabrial comes at last ten day of the holy month of ramdan in Lilat al qadar you translated it to the (night of power) when it is relly the (night of destiny) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.28.161 (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)