Talk:Jacob wrestling with the angel

"Interpretations" section?

 * This is a really fascinating and ambiguous biblical passage. Shouldn't there be an "interpretations" section? --71.231.140.55 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations Needed
So if I get drunk at a frat party, or I get delerious from walking for days on end without food and water in the desert and start to hallucinate, and I then wrestle with some guy, and ask for his blessing, I too can wrestle with god or an angel?

Citations needed of eyewitness first person testimony to prove this guy actually wrestled with god or an angel, or I move for deletion as unsubstantiated rubbish, from a single source. 17:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether it is literally something that happened (no, probably not) or not is not really relevant; its importance as a cultural touchstone (for instance, notice all the paintings based on the tale) is not really in dispute and like many parts of the Bible you'll find reference to it in tons of arts. 108.49.210.238 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Jacob wrestling with the Angel → Jacob wrestling with the angel – angel is not a proper noun, the article title is not in title case JFH (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not 100% sure about how the title officially appears, but due to the nature of what you are requesting, I have to contest it. I mean, the official title could appear as Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, which is also another redirect to Jacob wrestling with the Angel. I will not participate in this discussion any further than this; I will have to leave it up to other Wikipedians to cite/dispute the validity of this move. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: the problem with the lower case is that it is actually more restrictive. The article correctly states that the being is "variously described as an angel, a man, or God." The divine nature of the being is indicated by the capital letter, while lower case would mean adopting one particular interpretation/line of thought. I wonder if Jacob's wrestle might be an option, but it sounds strange, and I don't think it's a particularly common phrase. "Jacob wrestling with the Angel" is more common than "Jacob wrestling with God". StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - the phrase isn't capitalized. (See Google Books). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. &mdash;Wikipedian77 (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment While the episode itself should not be capitalized under MOS style guidelines, it is probably most commonly referred to these days as a common subject in art, where it is capitalized, and usually must be. I've noticed many capitalization zealots are insensitive to such distinctions, which frequently occur in these discussions, and are liable to introduce incorrect text as a result. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support capital A doesn't seem to be useful or verifiable and breaks MOS. While this may be common in art, this article is not about a piece of artwork. Calling people "capitalization zealots" is thoroughly unhelpful. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're exactly missing the point. Quite a large part of the article is about art, and uses of the phrase both as a title for specific works, and in discussion of the episode as a subject in art, should be capitalized, which is what many editors don't realize. I get a fair deal of trouble over this, including I think some from editors who have commented here. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be enough here to justify keeping an article about the episode itself, and if it becomes too much on the subject in art that can be split out. --JFH (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was going to suggest. Johnbod, I presume there's enough verifiable material to support a separate article if the definite article is that important for an article about the art? But it's clearly the tail wagging the dog for us to name the article about the topic in general because of the way the art world treats it. --Dweller (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor was I suggesting we do so - do try to read what people say. We're a long way from needing to split the article, & I for one have no plans to add to it any time soon. It is much more useful to keep such articles together unless they get really large. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think we should move the article. I thought you were arguing against. My apologies! --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrestling with an angel? Sure, but is not a Angel.
After reading the Passage in English, and Spanish, its clear for me that Jacob fought against God itself or at least an instance of him. The Idea of an Angel its and interpretation, and in the text its clear (from someone without religious blinders) that Jacob was wrestling with the God of Israel.200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for title change to 'wrestling with God'
Wrestling with an angel is a secondary interpretation and should not appear in the title. The title should be either 'wrestling with God' or 'Jacob's wrestling match'. The current title is far too inaccessible to the layman who is unfamiliar with the Bible. It is also assertive of a point of view which is less accepted among scholars.Grathmy (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of Jacob's wrestling match, in that it preserves neutrality (see my comment in the preceding move discussion). It also has significant use in secondary sources: 1600 results in Google Books, such as this commentary. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant reversion of edits
I would like to know why my edits are constantly being reverted. In the Genesis Jacob wrestles with a being who can be considered God. This is the main interpretation and the most parsimonious one. My changes do not divert from mainstream opinion. Additionally a title change should be made to wrestling with God.Grathmy (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would like to change the title, it is best to follow the procedure at Requested moves. If you look further up this talk page, there was a discussion about the article title a while ago. Your edits were reverted because you need to discuss things here and gain consensus. In the case of the lead sentence, the usual practice on wikipedia is to follow the article title, so changing the lead like that without discussing the title is inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved back to previously agreed title. Andrewa (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacob wrestling with an angel → Jacob's wrestling match – This name is more neutral, as it avoids specifying whether it was a man, an angel, or God himself. It's also used quite extensively - I got 1,600 results in Google Books. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cautious support per nom - seems clearer. Red Slash 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest "Jacob's wrestling" which gets "About 6,390 results" in books. Support a change one way or another.  GregKaye 11:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't 'get "About 6,390 results" in books' - a high % are for "Jacob's wrestling match", "Jacob's wrestling partner" etc. You can't just break up phrases like that and claim they support your choice. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnbod Of course I can. The common theme here is Jacob's wrestling.  There was no bell, no match official, no agreed rules or the like - just a cheating hip touching entity that called on special powers to (apparently) get his way.  I don't think that you can call this a wrestling match as I don't thing that you can state for certain that the two competitors were matched.  Arguably, if it were fair, the heavenly protagonist would have had to ask to be let go and submit and, on the basis of these views:
 * oppose GregKaye 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Jacob and the angel", or implement the last discussion above. That decided to move to "Jacob wrestling with the angel", but for some reason we've ended up with "Jacob wrestling with an angel".  I accept the ambiguity of the "partner" is an issue, but we are obliged to follow WP:COMMONNAME and "Jacob and the angel" is the usual title for depictions in art, and tends to be used as a heading when this episode is described, when the current title (using "the") isn't used. "Jacob's wrestling match" seems to me to be used as a description in text rather than a name for the episode. Ultimately, whoever the partner, it wasn't a "match", which seems to have inappropriate connotations to me. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The page move seems to have been done by accident. The move discussed above was implemented, but just a couple of months ago User:WikiDan61 attempted to revert an undiscussed move, and moved the page to "an" angel. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Per the above, if the result of this discussion is not to move, the page should be moved to Jacob wrestling with the angel per the last consensus position. StAnselm (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I was about to write against this idea, because I favor the Wikipedia policy on commonly recognized names, but then I checked google Scholar and Jacob's "wrestling match" (with Genesis in the search) did quite well compared to combos with angel or God. Plus, it is a more neutral article title than us taking a position whether he is wrestling with a man (i.e., the literal text), an angel (not mentioned in the text but very common in religious literature), or God. So, to my surprise, I support this proposal. To be sure, we should have redirects or phrasing within the article, so that the article shows up in searches for wrestling with God or the/an angel. ProfGray (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "angel" bit comes from Hosea 12:4 - still the biblical text, but not Genesis. StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hosea is welcome to his interpretation, but for an NPOV (or non-believers) this doesn't tell us what was meant by those who wrote or edited the Genesis text :) ProfGray (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the page should be restored to Jacob wrestling with the angel as per last consensus position and the vast majority of book sources. "match" is sports language. In ictu oculi (talk)
 * What is wrong with sport language, if that's language used by scholar's to discuss the biblical story? In ictu oculi, please see: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Jacob+%22wrestling+match%22+Genesis&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=  Presumably you don't think it is sacriligeous, so what's the objection? ProfGray (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because "match" is found in a minority of sources and is not how the subject is described in books. That search with no comparison is meaningless. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Wrestling match? That is so silly. That tends to indicate an actual competition. What weight class did he wrestle in? LOL. Just go back to Jacob wrestling with the angel. Wikimandia (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Proposed name is silly. It wasn't a "match". There was no referee, or anyone keeping score. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and move back to Jacob wrestling with the angel per In ictu oculi and WP:COMMONNAME. That was the title agreed in the last move request on the subject. And it was not a "match". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Promotes one view
"Jacob wrestles God" is an extremely common interpretation of this story. I don't understand why it's so downplayed. The article title is also simply bad, since it immediately picks a side. The previous RM was handled poorly because some users claimed that this was established in a previous RM/consensus, when that RM was only about whether to capitalize "angel"... Needs a tag for now. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. I just moved the title to a neutral version. Truth be toad (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, my version was reverted so i've lodged a 'requested move' directly below. Truth be toad (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved - there is strong opposition to the proposed move. Fuortu (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacob wrestling with the angel → Jacob's wrestling incident – Per the article's talk page and the article itself, it is nowhere near universally accepted that Jacob wrestled an angel. Truth be toad (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nonetheless, this is the most WP:COMMONNAME title, certainly not "Jacob's wrestling incident", which gets only 5 ghits. It is universally the title used in art and literature. See the discussion last year above - that was a slightly better suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, art and literature. Not to mention Hosea 12:4 and the Targums saying it was an angel - rightly or wrongly the Hosea explanation is predominant in Jewish and Christian reference. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Overwhelmingly more hits for Jacob wrestling with the angel. Meatsgains (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnbod. Interestingly, the proposed title is ambiguous because there is another wrestling "incident" inside Rebekah's womb. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed ambiguous, how about a different title: Jacob wrestling at Penuel? Truth be toad (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per COMMONNAME as elaborated above. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  14:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have thought that a concise title such as Jacob's wrestling would be more appropriate. As the nom rightly indicates, the 'wrestling' as described is very widely open to interpretation either as literal or figurative, physical, spiritual, psychological or delusional.  GregKaye 18:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME will beat concise every time. We are not in the business of inventing new terms. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: While this is not the best alternative, as I said above the current title is not accurate. As for the contributors adhering to COMMONNAME, the other alternative of him wrestling with God is very close. If we search for the combined "Jacob wrestling with the angel" -wikipedia -rembrandt and "Jacob wrestles with the angel" -wikipedia -rembrandt we get some 68.000 hits. Combining "Jacob wrestling with God" and "Jacob wrestles with God" gives around 50.000. So to then fully go with one side is not the point of COMMONNAME, as it's not neutral. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant doesn't use its overwhelmingly common name "ISIS" either, because it's ambiguous. I wasn't primarily concerned with the title though. The body seems to imply that Christian and Muslim views more often see him as having wrestled God, while Jewish sources more often claim it to have been an angel. So why does the introduction just state "usually considered to be an angel" (sources??) and no mentioning of God whatsoever? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Important note: "Jacob wrestling with the angel" returns more than just this story. It largely returns hits relating to Rembrandts painting of the event, such as this one, that are otherwise unrelated to the event. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As is normal, the article covers depictions in art as well, so these are the opposite of "unrelated". Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: While I do think the article could be renamed, I strongly object to the proposed title. Who describes it as an "incident"? -- Hazhk (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob wrestling with the angel. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VGltbbvfpA4J:www.jtsa.edu/Scholars_and_Research/JANES.xml%3Fss%3Dprint+%22Geller,%20Stephen%20A.%22%22The%20Struggle%20at%20the%20Jabbok:%20the%20Uses%20of%20Enigma%20in%20a%20Biblical%20Narrative%22%2214%20%281982%29%22%2237%E2%80%9360%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&hl=en with https://web.archive.org/web/20140814011432/http://jtsa.edu/Scholars_and_Research/JANES.xml?ss=print on https://www.jtsa.edu/Scholars_and_Research/JANES.xml?ss=print

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) 05:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Muslim view
I've posted to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Happy for comments there. Please keep discussion in one place. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Coming up with a new name.
The previous rename effort failed, in part, because people didn't like the proposed alternative; but the current one is clearly unusable. It clearly fails the naming policy, since sources disagree on what Jacob wrestled with; even if you accept that it's the WP:COMMONNAME (which I do not, since the paintings and other adaptations are not the topic of this article), WP:COMMONNAME states that '"ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section." The current title is clearly not neutral; the article describes a serious and ongoing debate about the meaning, which means we must rename it even if this is the common name for the story. I would also suggest that, when we do choose a name and run an RFC, that we broadcast it more widely; most of the previous ones had comparatively low participation. I don't see any way to satisfy WP:NPOV, at the very least, without changing it, and the previous rename attempt (over six months ago) was clearly flawed because most of the !votes cited WP:COMMONNAME as if it allowed us to ignore WP:NPOV in titles, when it explicitly says it does not. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A new one would be the fourth in a few years, and probably get even lower participation, and I think inevitably the same result. There is no better name, whatever the issues, but if you want to waste people's time (again), then you must. The NPOV issue is best addressed by explaining the issue in the lead, as the article does. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, when you exclude Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors (as the naming guidelines suggest), "Jacob Wrestling with the Angel" doesn't have that many more hits than "Jacob Wrestles with God", and the latter one clearly has more relevant hits (most of the ones for the first one refer to the name of various works of art based on the story, while the latter one's hits are virtually all to biblical analysis directly talking about the story in question.) Google hits aren't the ultimate arbitrator of a common name; the key thing is "what term to people use when specifically talking about this topic", and I think "Jacob Wrestles with God" clearly wins in that respect - it is, today, the more common term people use when discussing the story itself (so if we must chose between those two flawed titles, I'll probably push for a rename to that one.)  The fact that several famous painters (many taking a lead from each other) have used an alternative title for the story doesn't change that, since we're interested in what term people use when talking about the story and not about how people refer to those paintings.  But both names have the same problem, yes.  And I think we can get more participation by cross-posting to various religious messageboards and groups, which doesn't seem to have been done previously. I was hoping I could convince you, specifically, to support a new title, since I noticed your arguments above relied on a misreading of WP:COMMONNAME - obviously, the article text can't correct an issue in the title, which is used for all incoming links with no context.  That's why WP:TITLE specifically forbids non-neutral titles like this one.  But either way, I don't intend to just dive straight into an RFC just yet - we need some discussion so we can broadly reach an agreement on the flaws of the current name, what the various alternatives might be, and which one would be ideal.  I mean, how else do you intend to resolve the WP:NPOV issue?  You can't work around a non-neutral title. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem in supporting your effort, and i totally agree with your arguments. Truth be toad (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Johnbod does have a point in that we actually do need a name that people can agree on (one of the problems with previous rename attempts.) I'm not particularly enthused to try and push for a rename to "Jacob Wrestles with God", but the deeper I dig the more sure I am that it would at least be better than the current (if you page through the Google results - causing it to eliminate duplicates, which are a big problem here due to mirrors of various bible and art-history sites - the two come out to nearly the same number of unique hits, and as I said above the first one's hits are clearly more relevant to the topic - specifically, "Jacob Wrestles with God" is clearly and repeatedly used as the title for the story in question, over and over, in those hits; whereas "Jacob Wrestling with the Angel" is only occasionally used as a title for it in its hits.  If we must go with WP:COMMONNAME and ignore the NPOV issue of picking a side, the "Jacob Wrestles with God" is clearly more commonly used to refer to the biblical story. It also has the advantage of being slightly more concise. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support either "Jacob Wrestles with God" or "Jacob Wrestling with God." Truth be toad (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the page primarily about the bible verse, or primarily about the artistic represenations? Power~enwiki (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My reading based on the lead and structure is that the page is primarily about the Bible story, with a section devoted to artistic representations; but it occurs to me that one solution might be to fork it into one page about the bible story, and a second page about the artistic motif (of which there is clearly a lot more to say.) This would require elaborating on both, but I don't mind doing that if it would help resolve the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it would really. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that "God" titles have exactly the same objections as "angel" ones as far as the biblical side (as opposed to art) goes. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To meet NPOV why don't we rename it "Jacob Wrestling with the Angel-God-thingamajiggy" and call it a day! Truth be toad (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As a completely different suggestion, the "New Life Version" of the Bible uses "Jacob’s Name Is Changed to Israel" as a heading. I doubt that the artistic works would need a separate page; Saint Sebastian doesn't have a sub-page for art. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Repeated page move discussions are just a distraction and irritation from improving the encyclopedia. We've argued this through enough times. Sometimes there just isn't a perfect option. If you're bored, go take a look at all the previous move discussions without optimal resolutions that have ended up at WP:LAME, like yogurt/yoghurt. Let's not end up there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Jacob's close encounter of the third kind" Face-smile.svg — Paleo Neonate  - 17:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"as one of the ridiculous stories in the Christian Bible"
Ridiculous story, possibly, but how is it from the "Christian Bible" (generally used to mean the New Testament collection)? Is the source appropriate and the sentence reflecting it? I cannot access the source, only its table of contents. If it is a notable enough claim, we could probably also find another reference by a respected scholar who would clarify or criticize it. If it is a quote, we should probably quote it directly... — Paleo Neonate  - 09:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course another question is if this point of view reflects that of most Muslims (especially if it's the only thing the article says on the subject per WP:WEIGHT). Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  - 09:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the reliability of the source this comes from at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Section removed for now. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  - 23:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Kathir and the Muslim interpretation
My addition of Ibn Kathir's story of Yaqub to the Muslim interpretation was rejected as "Removed inconsequential Ibn Kathir view. Cite shows he is simply reproducing the biblical account." First, the fact that biblical stories were incorporated into the Muslim tradition was not inconsequential, and Ibn Kathir's stories of the prophets are well-known. The cite shows that there is a Muslim interpretation to this. Biblical stories are also in the Koran. Does that mean parts of the Koran are not Muslim? Second, he does not simply reproduce the biblical account. The Hebrew refers to Jacob's encounter with an "ish", a man. In Ibn Kathir's account: "When the dawn of the second day came one of the angels appeared in the shape of a man. Jacob began to wrestle with him. They were neck and neck until the angel injured his thigh and Jacob became lame." StarryGrandma (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ibn Kathir's view is worthy of inclusion because he has clearly put very little effort or thought into assessing the wrestling incident. He has lazily lifted the biblical account, as is shown by his repeated inclusion of "The People of the Book said/claim" throughout the cite. His view should at least be a little more focused and thoughtful to warrant inclusion. Truth be toad (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems rather selective -- as long as we reference Gary Greenberg's view that this references a wrestling match between Osiris and Set I see no reason to not also briefly reference Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir apparently gives the entire story in great detail, including interpretations such as "one of the angels appeared in the shape of a man". Sure, this is a very late commentary (14th century), but elsewhere in the article we do not shy away from treating medieval or even modern interpretation, so I don't see why Ibn Kathir should be treated differently. --dab (𒁳) 10:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparing Greenberg's original analysis to Ibn Kathir's copy and paste job is completely inappropriate. I made it very clear above why Ibn Kathir's "view" doesn't warrant inclusion: if you read the entire source, it is obvious it is not his view, commentary or interpretation whatsoever; he has simply copy and pasted the event from the Bible. To include his "view" under Interpretations is to make a mockery of the word 'Interpretation'. --Truth be toad (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems strange to include both the Jewish and Christian interpretations but remove the Muslim interpretation. Jacob is also a prophet in Islamic tradition; see Jacob in Islam. I am putting the Ibn Kathir reference back. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As i have shown above, Ibn Kathir offers no Muslim interpretation: copy and pasting from the Bible is not offering one's interpretation. --Truth be toad (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine, thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "Muslim interpretation", per the reasons offered above. --Truth be toad (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , three of us (myself,, and ) think the material should be in the article. You are the only one who disagrees. I notice that you put your objection ahead of PaleoNeonate's agreement, making it appear that he agreed with you instead. Your removal of the material is against consensus. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Before we can talk about consensus, youse must prove that Ibn Kathir's "interpretation" is more than just his copy and pasting of the Bible story — which the source clearly shows it is. If youse cannot prove this then consensus is simply smoke and mirrors for adding content that has no right to be included. Anyway, at best, Ibn Kathir's "interpretation" does not warrant inclusion under its own sub-heading but would belong under 'Other views'. --Truth be toad (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * i've restored this. only one person is objecting and the "derivative" argument is going no where. The tradition of use/interpretation in all the abrahamic religions is derivative of the original story. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made it very clear that i will accept Ibn Kathir's "interpretation" if any one of youse can prove that he is doing more than quoting the Bible story word for word. No one has responded to this challenge so far; therefore, Ibn Kathir's non-interpretation cannot be placed under 'Interpretation' — let alone having pride of place under its own 'Muslim interpretation' section. (A scholar quoting a primary source is not interpretation of any sort.) Until you can answer my simple request please stop using the smoke and mirrors of consensus. --Truth be toad (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No one here is finding the "deal" you are offering interesting or relevant to how WP works. And consensus is actually how this place works. Please do review WP:CONSENSUS. It is not the same as "every person needs to agree". Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe consensus is being used here for mean-spirited and evasive purposes. --Truth be toad (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt one last time to get a response here to my simple request: please prove that Ibn Kathir is doing more than quoting the Bible story word for word in the reference. If i do not get a response then i will take this issue up on a noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. --Truth be toad (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not attempt to prove anything and am rather ambivalent about the issue. If I understand, an argument is that the Muslim view is welcome considering the common prophets.  Another argument would be that Ibn Kathir only talks about the event in relation to the Bible (not the Quran)?  However he is apparently a Muslim scholar and also quotes the Quran in that source (but not in relation to the wrestling event).  He still claims "children of Israel do not eat the thigh muscle on the hip socket".  Which poses a few questions for me: are "children of Israel" unambiguously Muslims to him?  Do Muslims avoid eating tigh muscle on the hip socket?  If so, it appears that the source may be adequate to present this Muslim view.  If not, I don't understand why the Muslim view is significant in relation to this story.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is fixable. See the article. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Job well done! Thankyou. --Truth be toad (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dissolving the issue with the title
Could this article not simply be shortened to the jewish accunt on this verse? Since judaism hold, elohim refers here to an angel (acutally elohim is in jewish thought not equal to God, but means "force" also refering to kings, angels, God(s) and so on)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Rosemary Ellen Guiley
Not particularly christian and it is not clear to me if Guiley is a credible or a pusher of woo......

According to popular author Rosemary Ellen Guiley, "This dramatic scene has spurred much commentary from Judaic, Catholic, and Protestant theologians, biblical scholars, and literary critics. Does Jacob wrestle with God or with an angel?...There is no definitive answer, but the story has been rationalized, romanticized, treated as myth, and treated symbolically."

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So why did you remove her view? If you removed it because it doesn't belong under 'Christian interpretations' then it can be easily moved to 'Other views'. If you removed it because the author is not credible then please define what makes someone credible in order to have their views added; i don't see anything controversial in her statement. --Truth be toad (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He removed it because it isn't significant what she thinks, although in fact her comment is perfectly conventional. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, if you don't mind, i'de like to hear it from the horse's mouth. --Truth be toad (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I see this has been restored but in a different section. Which is a bit of an improvement. The article would be of higher quality without this pop culture dreck but there are other things i want to do in WP. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Marxist philosopher Bloch
"Following the escalation he was politically and academically isolated, which led to his leaving the country (GDR) in 1961. But his philosophy of hope was kept alive in the GDR, especially in oppositional circles." From 1961 Bloch was no more a "Marxist philosopher". Source: Ernst Bloch in der DDR September 2013 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 61(4) DOI:10.1524/dzph.2013.61.4.561

factual error
One of the illustrations is credited to the Gutenberg bible. The Gutenberg Bible is not illustrated. 2601:644:9280:6350:F13C:4C0:1B43:BDD3 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed - as the image file says, its the Wutenberg Bibel of 1558, which some idiot changed. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)