Talk:War in Heaven/Archive 1

Lucifer's name
The latin doesn't literally translate to "Morning Star". The meaning is similar but the literal translation is "Light Bringer". Can someone fix the article to represent this? -CodyM 71.82.86.115 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * Boldly removing it. RobbieG 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


 * Thank you for replying so quickly; that's fine as long as a reference is given. RobbieG 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I agree, very strongly. This is a really salient story in Christian mythology, and deserves much more explanation than it's getting here. I wish that I was even slightly knowledgeable about the topic; then I would beef up the whole article. Oh well. --Hermitage (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We could add a great amount of detail from Milton, if we counted it as canon...but I'm not sure it meets the same benchmark as the Bible, the Pope or similar religious "authorities". Perhaps we could add a "Milton's Interpretation" section specifically? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * At its core, it's a myth, therefore its 'facts' are those decided by the mythmakers. I think the article makes it clear that it's mythological, so you're basically saying that Greek mythology should have a disclaimer saying "most modern greeks do not believe this"?  Seems a bit unnecessary.  Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but modern greeks do not follow Greek mythology. It's ancient Greek mythology.  If we had a myth found in the mythology that was only accepted by a small number of Greeks, it would be a good idea to add a note about that.  Christianity, if you consider it a mythology, is alive and popular.  Most of these extra-biblical myths spring up from Catholicism, and even many Catholics do not believe them.  If you consider the whole mythology the information outside the Bible, that would be more accurate.  Either way, it needs clarifying. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of the numbers in the battle, the mythmakers didn't come up with these. We only have two sources for the numbers - Pope John XXI in 1273 and an 'affirmation' by Alphonso de Spina in the 1400s. Only the latter of these has a citation, and even the reference there is a website with only a brief remark. Can't we come up with something a little more substantial? Tsumaru 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find a better source, by all means use it - otherwise we'll keep what we can get. The pope seems like a fairly authoritative source on a doctrine of Christian mythology, after all. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't find the pope an authority on Christianity when he speaks outside the Bible (which I believe is the only true source). But he is a good source on Catholicism.  It's quite obvious that no such numbers are indicated by the Bible (unless the Pope is estimating by the verse about a third of the stars being swept out of the sky, which a lot of people take to mean angels falling).  This is extra-Biblical, and therefore is not a doctrine of Christianity in general.  It is mythology, built up around the original doctrine.  I, too, wonder how he got those numbers.  At any rate, I don't believe most Christians, including Catholics, believe that these numbers are infallibly accurate.  If there are any Catholics present, feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong. --Narfil Palùrfalas 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the "myth" of this great battle, which is extra-biblical largely, and told in stained glass and stories of saints, was created at a time when there only were two churchs (Orthodox and Catholic) and was entirely Catholic in origin. The "later" churches that stressed "only biblical" sources for Christianity hadn't been created yet at the time of this myth. So no, most protestants wouldn't accept the Pope's numbers as neccessarily valid, but neither would most Catholics who dismiss it as "legend" - but it's like saying that Luke Skywalker is 21 years old...he's a fictional character, so whether later authors agree or disagree, rewrite new sources or find older drafts of the script where he's 17...it doesn't matter, ultimately "this story" is the creation of George Lucas, so we just tell it like he said it.  The Catholic church largely "wrote" the stories of Lucifer and Michael as commonly known (very little of it is biblically-sourced)...so they are "the authority" on the myth, as I see it.  For what it's worth, I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant, I'm simply trying to write an informative and concise wiki article.  But "the pope says there are X angels" is like saying "Bob says corvettes look best in blue", it's clearly sourced to a single reference - and presumably anybody who doesn't believe/follow Bob/thePope, wouldn't necessarily agree with the statement.  If a specific church (such as we've done with LDS and Sufis) has an "alternate" fact, by all means include it...but saying "not everybody agrees with the Pope" is superfluous, presumably every reader knows that not everybody in the world believes the Pope, that would be like saying "Bob says corvettes look best in blue...but other people have other opinions or don't accept Bob as the ultimate authority". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I believe I understand you better. The article itself does not define "Christian mythology", though the link does.  To improve this article, I would suggest an up-front definition of Christian mythology (i.e., extra-Biblical myths).  I think a casual reader might easily suppose that the content of this article was common Christian teaching.  I also note that several of the references are Biblical passages.  The Revelation reference says nothing about the Angels being cast into Hell (rather, to the earth).  The Isaiah reference is also presented as definitive, when actually the number of Christians who equate Lucifer to Satan is rapidly dropping.  The Luke reference as well is debated.  Anyway, my point is that they are not solid references.  We need to cite Catholic sources that come out and say these things.  I'm not sure where to find any. --Narfil Palùrfalas 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My issue was as much with the lack of real referencing as opposed to anything else. If you take a look, the reference we are given only has a little bit of relevant information, and that is referenced from somewhere else itself. How do we know that the Pope said this many numbers, and how do we know that Alphonso de Spina reaffirmed it later? I would be happy if the reference was actually a reputable source. Tsumaru 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Silly infobox
Okay. This is all regarding the infobox and WP:WAF.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


 * I agree. This article is somewhat less touchy because it's not really a doctrine of Christianity, and many Christians do not even believe there was such a rebellion (I, for instance, believe it's probable that Satan was a fallen angel, but the Bible simply doesn't talk about it).  Those numbers are accepted only by some Catholics, certainly not all, and certainly not Protestants.  Still, with that said, we should probably come up with a better category.  Wikipedians seem to prefer "mythology" when dealing with religion, especially apocrypha that is only accepted by a certain number, or comes (in Christianity) from extra-Biblical sources.  But fiction implies that it's just plain fiction, i.e., nobody accepts it as anything but literature. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I pseudo-agree, I mean it's odd not having any "battle" categories, but having it in "Category:Historical battles" seems even worse than having it in "Category:Fictional battles", I don't suppose we could agree on creating a "mythological battles" category for this, and other religious/Greek&RomanGods/etc battles? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it might be good middle ground. I agree with making a "mythological battles" cat instead of leaving it uncategorized battle-wise, although personally I love having it in fictional battles.   DEVS EX MACINA  pray 08:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't fictional. on't do this. Is a terrile idea. Terrible! Why are you doing this? it's not that fair. You shouldn't do this at all.-- 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, as an angel I'm sure you witnessed it! I presume you fought on Michael's side, then?  Take any serious injuries or was it all pretty glorious?  Buwahaha!  Hoo boy... so sorry, old chap, but good luck figuring out which of those many, many accounts on the War is 'factual,' if you believe it's true.  Stick it under mythological battles, folks. 169.232.242.111 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. What you're basically saying is "it's fictional, but let's not say so in case we upset some people who believe it." Misodoctakleidist (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)



© 2007-2008 Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary

Fiction

1 a: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b: fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c: a work of fiction; especially : novel2 a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth b: a useful illusion or pretense3: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination I do not think the people who originally wrote the scriptures believed they imagined or feigned anything fictitious. Especially when the reward for telling any events that involves being good or moral normally resulted in an unpleasant death for the  first offense, even if there were witnesses. If you really want to stick religion in something else, try mythology: (MW) 2: a body of myths: as a: the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people.

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

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


 * Yeah, that box was phenomenally lame to have here. Even religious mythology or folklore are not fiction. I've removed it.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * the term "fictional" did does not appear in the article anywhere, ignore the fact it's in the code. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly did appear in the infobox until you replaced it with the word "canon". I don't think that's a much better substitute, as it implies the date and estimated number of combatants is part of all these religions' canons. At any rate having an infobox on a war between angels is still incredibly lame (the number of casualties is listed as "unknown"!), and not very useful considering how many different sources and opinions there are. This should be dealt with more like we deal with Noah's Ark than how we deal with the Battle of Yavin.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or like Battle of Fallujah, the infobox provides a place to give the briefest summary (who was fighting, who won, who the leaders of each army were) to the casual reader who doesn't want to wade through paragraphs of text. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that that battle had actual verifiable numbers and occurred in a place in our world, not "heaven". Listing a pope's estimate of the number of angels involved as if it were hard fact (or even a commonly held belief) is misleading and not useful to the reader, nor is the space saying the casualties were "unknown", as if there would be a way for this information to be known. And this is not "canon" information, as the box implies. Again, there are far too many opinions on this subject for such a box to be useful. And there's simply no way to make it useful.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the "Casualties" parameter entirely. If the "number of angels involved" were "common knowledge" this would be a very pointless article indeed - the entire point of it is to collect the obscure facts from history. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, the point of any article is not to assemble a collection of obscure facts. Second, this isn't "fact", it's an estimate made by one or two people. You haven't addressed my concern about the word "canon" or how there are a number of other opinions on the subject that are represented in the infobox. The box is just flat useless. I suppose this will require a third opinion or request for comment.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing I didn't say yet was that the box is basically original research, assembling together a number of factoids as if they were part of some verifiable whole. That is obviously not appropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [outdent] The facts in the box are the commanders of the two armies, which side won, how large each army was, when it took place and where it took place. Now I haven't seen any sources that suggest an alternate number of angels, I haven't seen any sources that suggest it took place somewhere other than Heaven, I haven't seen any sources that suggest someone other than Lucifer and Michael were the commanders, and I haven't seen any sources suggest that the Loyal angels did not win.  So exactly which facts do you believe have "a number of other opinions" that contradict them?  I don't see any WP:OR, though I would be interested to hear exactly what you think comprises OR in the infobox, and as for the word canon, can't you just go to canon? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly and inappropriate The information is not so much OR as outdated. Who now believes the date, or the numbers of combatants have any authenticity? Certainly not the Vatican. Remove. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, we're basing this off accuracy? That seems like a silly/dangerous slope applied to religious articles, how many people believe it was literally 313 Muslims at the Battle of Badr? Or that the Battle of Zhuolu's numbers, which are more than twice as "outdated" as this article's references, about a battle that took place in "roughly the same era"? There's absolutely no reason that the historical accuracy of sources should play a role in whether or not to add an infobox to an article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, whilst difficult/controversial/essentially unknowable issues can be addressed in text, an infobox is no place for them. Only unarguable factual information - or very solid traditions - should be included. "Other crap exists" is no argument. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I told Cuchilian, "I haven't seen any sources that suggest an alternate number of angels, I haven't seen any sources that suggest it took place somewhere other than Heaven, I haven't seen any sources that suggest someone other than Lucifer and Michael were the commanders, and I haven't seen any sources suggest that the Loyal angels did not win", so what facts exactly are "argued"? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No modern Catholic theologian would attempt to put a date to the conflict, or give numbers of combatants. Since your only source is a medieval pope, these must be regarded as superceded by ? and ? Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because few people other than a medieval pop have tried to calculate the number of angels in the battle does not mean opinions do not differ. As Johnbod said, no modern Catholic theologian would agree with the number. And I would call this effectively original research by synthesizing material- combining a few medieval scholars' interpretation of the numbers, with some factoids from religious folklore (the leaders of the sides), and giving one side the idiosyncratic title "loyalist angels" and even attributing to them a little flag. This is all presented as "canon" information. As for canon, by any definition of the term it is used incorrectly here (except maybe for the "fandom" definition that appears in Wiktionary and no other dictionary). It needs to go.--Cúchullain t/ c 08:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No modern Catholic theologian would claim to have found the "true Cross", "Crown of thorns" or "Spear of Destiny" either - and while we can use terms like "The pope claimed..." or "part of Christian mythology..." to denote the 'dubious' nature of the claims, there's no reason to suggest that the infobox is wrong. I'm not sure why you claim something like Michael/Lucifer being the respective leaders is a "factoid", or dispute the adjective "loyal" as referring to the ones who weren't the ones "rebelling". Effectively, if you can find anyone notable (Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, whatever) who has proposed an alternate leadership, alternate number of angels or alternate turn-out of the battle, then we can remove the current facts from the infobox. But right now those are the only facts that have ever even been claimed to be true - so in the absence of any contradicting evidence, they remain the accepted definition. I'd suggest your time is best spent invested in finding some bishop, mufti or scholar who suggested alternate numbers/leaders - since that would require removing the material in question (since it would no longer be the only number ever put forward). Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interjecting quickly, I should note that no Muslims accept that angels are capable of rebellion or that Iblis was even an angel. It's rather clearly noted in the Qur'an that he was, instead, a Jinni, a mythological entity that predates Islam and formed an important part of Arabic polytheistic religion. 169.232.242.111 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a clear WP:CONCENSUS against it, over a long period. In fact no one else (I think) has said they support it. These arguments were all made last year & we are now just going round in circles. You should accept consencus and acquiesce in its removal. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments. The inclusion of the numbers of combatants on each side is clearly problematic. By including them here, we are in effect indicating that they are the "accepted" numbers, and their is no assertion that the estimates given by the Pope are still considered even remotely accurate. In fact, in most of the comments I have ever seen on the subject, it is "untold" numbers on both sides, so including any numbers would seem to be going against the majority of the sources which deal with the subject. The inclusion of the year is also very much disputed, or at least clearly and almost definitively not supported, by any number of existing sources on the same subject. Inclusion of that specific date is also at best dubious. Lastly, from what little I know of the subject, these infoboxes are intended to be quick summaries of battles in wars involving more than one battle. While in a strictly religious sense most Judeo-Christians would say that there is a major battle for the soul of each human being, I really doubt we're going to be seeing articles on the Battle for the soul of John Carter, Battle for the soul of Sherurcij, Battle for the soul of Johnbod, or Battle for the soul of Cúchullain, so in a sense the infobox doesn't even qualify for inclusion on that basis. Based on all the above, including that the numbers on both sides and timing of the battle are far from agreed upon, and the lack of any preceding or subsequent battles in the war being likely to be included here, I have to think that, while the information might be useful, the infobox itself isn't necessarily useful. Now, if it were to fall into standard usage in articles like Titanomachy and similar articles and these articles on the various "theological conflicts" linked together somehow, maybe, then, there might be a reason to have an infobox here. Even then I'd think it would be possibly more than a bit dubious though. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems consensus is clearly against including the box. It's time to remove it.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

"Christian MYTHOLOGY?"

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

I've seen the box "myth box christianity" on the Christian Mythology page, which is intended to clear up the confusion with the words "myth" and "mythology". Could this be useful on this page as well? Quietmarc (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be, and it now is. Thank you very much for the suggestion. :) John Carter (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mythology applies to all of Christianity. It doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue, either.  "Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" (see above) imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story"." 169.232.242.111 (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I Thought all the discussion in categories above settle that mythology was the most acceptable term since it is also used in classification by libraries?Septagram (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slew of new FACT tags
I really don't think it's fair to place fact after every mention of the word Lucifer to say "It's not established Lucifer and Satan are the same!", or to place it after cited facts to question the citation, or perhaps most oddly, to place it after Bible citations that say "Oh Lucifer, you have..." to say "It's OR to suggest this is about Lucifer". This is not an article about Lucifer, Satan or the possible differences between them in early Sumerian religion - in all the sources of this event, the two names are congrous, and if people want to read about the history of both names, they can read those Wiki articles. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just establish it once with any reliable source, and that problem will be solved. Then try to respond to the other citation requests.  For instance, on what source do you base your claim that it was Satan/Lucifer who said the words "I will ascend to Heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High", words that Isaiah attributes instead to the king of Babylon (Is 14:4), that human (Is 14:16) king to whom Isaiah gives (Is 14:12) the title of Morning Star ("הילל" in the original Hebrew, "ἑωσφόρος" in Greek, "lucifer" in Latin - all of which mean "Morning Star", "Daystar", or whatever English name you want to give to the early morning appearance of the planet Venus)?  There are several more unsourced statements that need attention.  Requests have been made for citations to support them.  You may eliminate each request as soon as you answer it.  But you cannot just remove the requests and pretend they haven't been made.  Lima (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Other unsourced claims
I welcome discussion on the exact meaning of phrases, and ways to better write that in the article - but that does not belong in "hidden notes" on the article - it belongs on the discussion page - let's focus back here on how to improve what's shown up there. Reach compromise, then add it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is better to deal with one matter at a time. So please deal first with the Isaiah passage. Meanwhile you can start considering what reliable source to quote for the unsupported idea that a third of the angels supported Lucifer, an idea that John Gill says is baseless; and for the similar idea that in  Jesus was referring to events of "millennia before" and not to the events of that moment that are spoken of immediately before and after verse 18.  Lima (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish mythology is usually incorporated into Christianity. Please don't confuse this issue with Islam. Kabad (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Somebody added the Islam wikiproject, please don't remove it of your own volition. The concept exists, as discussed in the Sufi section. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lima's version
Please don't delete sourced material. This article is about War of Heaven, not fall of angels. Kabad (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Phrases like "The idea was borrowed from a popular legend about this star, which for a short time outshines all other stars, but is then eclipsed by the morning sun." have absolutely nothing to do with the war. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would Kabad please cite sources for the "The War" section, which he has here described as "sourced"! The unrevised version of the article has little else but similar unsourced statements.  The revised version does source its statements.
 * The unrevised article speaks repeatedly of "Lucifer", without giving even a brief explanation of the origin of the word. The quotation from the Jewish Encyclopedia about that matter does have much to do with the topic of the article.
 * Is Milton's Paradise Lost perhaps the only really traceable source that speaks of a primeval, not an end-of-time, war, such as the unrevised article purports to describe?
 * I would be interested in hearing other views on the comparative value of the unrevised and the revised version. Lima (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "On the other hand", "So and so says that supposedly in some unknown writing" really are not fitting of an encyclopaedia. Focus should remain exclusively on the war/battle itself, not on the origins of its combatants. Lucifer's role as daystar is as irrelevant to this article as Condeleeza Rice's birthday is to the article United States of America. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lima, sources 4-9 are cited in the section you just deleted under the cloak of revision! Please explain your deletion. --Kabad (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The War
In 1273, Pope John XXI, then Bishop of Tusculum, estimated that the total number of angels who sided with Lucifer's revolt numbered 133,306,668, which would suggest that they were fighting against a force of 266,613,336 angels who remained loyal to God, so that the total number of angels then was 399,920,004, 79,996 short of 400 million. This number was later affirmed by 15th-century scholar Alphonso de Spina., In his review of opinions on the number of fallen angels, theologian John Gill shows no awareness of the existence of the idea here attributed to Cardinal Pedro Julião and Alfonso de Spina.

Filled with hubris, Lucifer issued a declaration of war stating that "I will ascend to Heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

In the end, Lucifer and all the angels under his command were thrown out of Heaven as punishment for their insurrection. Several millennia afterwards, Jesus Christ said that he had been present and saw Lucifer being thrown down like a flash of lightning.

Ref
Do you just delete things you don't like? --Kabad (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down, Kabad. Most of Lima's changes were improvements. S/he added some much needed context on the background of the story. It is entirely appropriate to discuss the origin of "Lucifer" in discussing this story, a context-less account of this hypothetical war is not really very useful. There is a bit that could have been kept, but most of the rest of it that had any value was still in his version.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide piped links to the proper articles for people who want "background" information on the history of Satan, not to turn each encyclopaedic article into a high-school report. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * High school report? The current state of this article is about as bad as they get: factoids and summary with no context. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and Lima's revision was a step in that direction.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I back up this version but her deletion is very suspicious (theologically motivated is what pops up to my mind). --Kabad (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kabad, please back up the factoids in your preferred version of the section, or accept that it needs to be radically revised. Attributing theological motives to other editors is no substitute for providing the requested citations.  In my editing of the section - I fail to see why I should be altogether banned from doing an edit of the unrevised version - I have only made clearer how devoid of sourcing that section really was and is, by adding sourced statements about the baselessness of the links that a previous editor claimed to see (Original Research) between those factoids and certain passages of Scripture.  Lima (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sherurcij, I put it to you that it is your repeated reversal of a good-faith edit that constitutes edit-warring. I know you initiated this article, but that doesn't give you the right to exclude other editors.
 * Since it was you who inserted the questioned factoids, perhaps you are called, even more than Kabad, to back them up with citations. Lima (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My creation of the article has nothing to do with it; your poor prose and questionable writing style do. As mentioned, there is no need to give background history about the origin of Satan's names and monikers in this article - similarly, there is no need to say things like "on the other hand...", or preface cited facts with "Well according to X author, the Pope said..." - just imagine if we constantly said "Well, if you can believe the Washington Post, this man was arrested in July..." Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 08:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, what about providing the requested citations? For instance, that Lucifer actually said: "I will ascend to Heaven ..." (and yet, as the article presents the matter, that's exactly where Lucifer was when he is supposed to have said it!), that Rev 12 was about a primeval war (curious that it begins with an account of a woman giving birth before the war - who was she? who was the son she bore before the war? where was she taken to be fed for a thousand two hundred and threescore days? ...), - for more such factoids, just look at my edit of the section (of the unrevised version of the article) that we are discussing: in that edit, which you seem intent on edit-warring out of existence, I pointed out a number of the unsourced statements in the article.  (I even gave sourced statements that declared your factoids unfounded: is that why you can't bear to let my edit stand even for a short time?)  You know the rule about statements that remain unsupported when challenged.  To think that this is the very section that Kabad called "sourced"!  Lima (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lima, there is one citation needed in the current version. If you need more add fact tags. You cannot just delete what you don't like. Are you trying to water down the main issue, War of Heaven, by adding background info not very relevant? How can you just delete sourced material without discussion? --Kabad (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lima, sources 4-9 are cited in the section you just deleted under the cloak of revision! Please explain your deletion. --Kabad (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me which of the sources in references 4-9 (which are not deleted: they're still in the article) shows that Lucifer said he would go up to heaven, when he was already there? Is it perhaps one of the unspecified sources mentioned in reference 7 ("Sources[clarify] differ whether the angels were thrown to Earth, or to Hell")?  What an illuminating reference for an encyclopedia!  (Irony.)  Which of them says Rev 11 is about a primeval war?  Which of them says that in Lk 10:18 Jesus was referring not to the matters in the verses immediately before and after, but instead to events "millennia" before?
 * I have asked both you and Sherurcij for citations in support of these statements in the section. Applying some form of personal censorship, Sherurcij has removed the tags.  But the requests have been made.  How about answering them?  Either of you.
 * The only "background information" I added to the section (which you qualified as "sourced") were some sourced statements about the baselessness of the factoids included in that section. Unless defended, these unsupported factoids can be removed.  Now at last, do please try to justify the statements in the section we are talking about.  Lima (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is your deletion of cited information without discussion. I understand some sources may have been cited wrongly. Luke 10:18 says: "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." What's your objection to this citation? The People's NT's commentary says: "I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Various interpretations of this statement are given, but it is probable that Christ refers to the original fall of Satan (Isa_14:12; Jude 6). The victory of his disciples over the demons is the harbinger of another fall, when Satan and all his works shall be destroyed."

Please add fact tags where needed and allow a few days for claims to be backed up or removed. --Kabad (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kabad. It is good of you to answer (or at least begin to answer) my request for sources for the assertions in the text before us.  It is also good of you to support the idea of putting back the citation requests that Sherurcij keeps censoring.  I gladly accept your invitation to put them back in.  Please help me (if necessary, by restoring them yourself) to keep them there for whatever reasonable number of days Sherurcij (or anybody else) needs to look for sources for his assertions.
 * The only thing I deleted when I put these tags on, were the comments in form that I then felt were no longer necessary.  This time, in view of complaints about deletions, I leave them there.  They were originally inserted in the hope that Sherurcij would take account of them and make it unnecessary to put them into a more visible and therefore seemingly more combative form.
 * You seem to want to discuss what you see as deletions in the revised version, which you removed less than eight hours after it was put up. That is not what is before us now.  So let us, for now, discuss what we actually have.  Lima (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Revision as of 14:02, June 17, 2008 (edit): Sherurcij: rvt, If you want citations, add fact tags, do not change the prose" Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of your prose, Sherurcij, have I omitted? Nothing, as far as I can see, not even the hidden comments, which I omitted the previous time.  Why not at last address my requests for citations?  Lima (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that I told you to include fact tags from the beginning if you had concerns, so there's no reason to make comments like "the citation requests that Sherurcij keeps censoring". The only thing I am "censoring" is your poor attempts to turn an encyclopaedic article into "Storytime with Uncle Lima". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, having said that, will you now please attempt to provide sources? Lima (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Titles
I apologize if this has been brought up or settled. However in the first part of the explanation of this subject it is stated that Lucifer was a Seraph. This is incorrect he was an arch-angel there is a significant differance as there are only 7 seraphs and only angels followed Lucifer not seraphs, cheribum, strengths, virtues or any other "angelic figures". Once again not trying to cause flame wars or anything just pointing out this error I apologize if this has been addressed and this was the decided outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboarmy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The original version included a footnote that Lucifer's rank was disputed, I'll re-insert it. Thanks for catching that. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sherarcij's reverts
I"ve largely reverted the article back to its February incarnation, when we agreed to remove the infobox. (I've included the more recent additions of Bibliography and external links, though). Can we please work from this "accepted" version, one issue at a time? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make such large changes without previous discussion (to quote yourself). Why not first deal with the matter in hand? For days, we are waiting for your response to citation requests.  Lima (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "citation requests", ask me a specific question and I'll answer it. But mine is not a "large change" like yours is, because mine is not putting my own personal writing above everybody else's, it's reverting to a time before there were large arguments; the "most basic" version which we grudgingly agreed upon. (For example, I was in favour of the infobox, but Cuchillian opposed it - so it went). If you have a specific issue with the February version, then please mention it and we'll all work through it together, similarly if there's a phrase or paragraph you want to add to the February version, please mention it and we'll all work through it together. I'll start..."I'm not a huge fan of the gallery, I'd rather incorporate one or two of the images into the article text, then have a Commons link", opinions? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You've "largely reverted the article back to its February incarnation", deleting, I suppose, contributions by Cuchullain, Johnbod, Alanraywiki, Padillah, John Carter, Kabad. "Reverting to a period before there were large arguments" really means "reverting to a period when the article was as I, Sherurcij, wanted it to be."
 * Kabad, do you think what Sherurcij has done is fair? To me he seems to be treating the article as his personal property.  Lima (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't deleted anymore edits by Kabad, Carter, Padillah, AlanRay, Johnbod or Cuchullain than I have of myself (far more of my own material is deleted, in fact). I have simply gone back to the last version before controversy arose, to try and re-start the editing process with consensus. Please do not make fallacious claims of maliciousness. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to start somewhere. How about this version? --Kabad (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the place to start is where we are, not at some arbitrary place further back and further arbirarily modified to suit someone's personal view. To do so when obstinately preventing alteration of that person's preferred text and refusing to answer repeated citation requests about his statements might even seem dishonest, like unilaterally moving the goalposts in mid-game.  Lima (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kabad, that version is fine with me as well as a starting point. It's actually largely similar to the one I chose, the only difference are that your version contains the overly-verbose math "numbered 133,306,668, which would suggest that they were fighting against a force of 266,613,336 angels who remained loyal to God, so that the total number of angels then was 399,920,004, 79,996 short of 400 million.", the negative statement that a specific theologian did not mention a fact and the "daystar crap" ("The King James Version used the Latin word for the star in 14:12; modern translations such as Young's Literal Translation, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, NJB, NIV, English Standard Version, New American Bible, Contemporary English Version, New English Bible, New Living Translation, use the English terms "Daystar""). I think all three of these are superflous, though we could re-phrase the Gill bit and leave it included - I just don't like the sounds of "In his review of opinions on the number of fallen angels, theologian John Gill shows no awareness of the existence of the idea here attributed to Cardinal Pedro Julião and Alfonso de Spina." which seems to be trying to prove a negative. If it can be rephrased as an alternate theory or something, that'd be great. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What citation requests?
Sheracij says he has no idea what I mean by "citation requests". "Ask me a specific question", he says, "and I'll answer it."

I have repeatedly asked specific questions, both in the article itself (citation requests) and on the Talk page. Will he please now answer, and tell me on what sources he bases his statements:
 * that Lucifer actually said: "I will ascend to Heaven ..." (and yet, as the article presents the matter, that's exactly where Lucifer was when he is supposed to have said it!);
 * that Rev 12 was about a primeval war (curious that it begins with an account of a woman giving birth before the war - whom commentators take to be the church);
 * that in Lk 10:18 Jesus was referring not to the matters in the verses immediately before and after, but instead to events "millennia" before.

These specific questions are not new: I have cut and pasted these from earlier in the Talk page. Lima (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning the last point, the People's NT's says about Luke 10:18:
 * I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Various interpretations of this statement are given, but it is probable that Christ refers to the original fall of Satan (Isa 14:12; Jude 6). The victory of his disciples over the demons is the harbinger of another fall, when Satan and all his works shall be destroyed.
 * --Kabad (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kabad that there are various interpretations of each of these points; I am not your priest, I cannot "answer" which is the true interpretation anymore than you can demand that I provide a citation about which is the true religion. The references should be included in the article, as they are often said to point to this battle, and links should be given in footnotes to the appropriate bible verse in full context, and it shoudl be made clear that these are interpretations, not factual tidbits. I think I've done all of that already, though if there is any way to improve my work in that area, I welcome it. However, that does not mean I fancy Lima turning this into some strange hybrid between a Sunday School lesson and a high school report. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "I agree", you say, "that there are various interpretations of each of these points." Well then, just give a source, any source, that supports your interpretaton of each of them, and insert that source into your version of the article in connection with the point you are defending.  Until that is done, your assertions count only as original research, which is not admitted in Wikipedia.  Lima (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I threw in seven random links to prove to you that it's not OR, nor license to simply re-write the article as you'd like. They are accepted translations, whether "true" or not. Personally, I feel the references mess up and over-crowd the article. When we say "The Book of Genesis says that Eve ate a fruit from the forbidden tree", we include a citation to the biblical reference, we do not require half a dozen links to sermons or commentaries. But if they really make you happy, they can stay. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because the Bible actually does say "...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat..." No need to interpret what that means (even given the Old English phrasology). Unless you are advocating that the passage in question is litteral (That Satan came to earth as a lightning bolt) then you need to support the interpretation or it's WP:OR. If you can quote someone ("Jackson says this represents yadda yadda") then fine, anything else is your interpretation. Padillah (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Revelation the Catholic Encyc. says:
 * Apocalypse 12:7, "And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon." St. John speaks of the great conflict at the end of time, which reflects also the battle in heaven at the beginning of time.

It adds that Michael's name "was the war-cry of the good angels in the battle fought in heaven against the enemy and his followers." --Kabad (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for intervention
Kabad, Cuchullain and anybody else who might be interested, please express your views on the acceptability of Sherurcij's actions.
 * Twice today he has reverted to his own previous text so as to delete (solely on the grounds that he thinks it "unencyclopedic") information that
 * is backed up by reliable sources, and
 * is pertinent to the topic under discussion: it shows that statements Sherurcij has placed in the article (statements for which he has only now, at my insistent urging, begun to quote sources) are, to say the least, not universally accepted by scholars. I of course do not deny that there are sources for his views, and I have been asking him to improve the article by putting them in; but he refuses to admit into the article any hint that there are sources that disagree.
 * He has used the same method also in the last days to eliminate views other than his own.
 * Instead of responding to citation requests or at least leaving the tags in, he removes those tags by these blanket reversals. He even then claims on the Talk page that no requests for citations have been made.
 * Yesterday, with support from nobody whatever, he reverted back to a text of some months ago, thus deleting the intervening work of other editors.
 * I would just like the initiator of the article to allow me to make some edits; I don't want to eliminate his. I did put forward a general revision, which Cuchullain thought was an improvement ; but, in view of the opposition, I did not fight for its restoration (Sherurij's reversal of this, done twice, is not referenced above); instead I just tried to get the defects in the unrevised text fixed by getting the author to give sources for his statements, and by myself adding an account of another point of view.Lima (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Details and diffs to specifically what is being referred to would be very useful. John Carter (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I've tried to. Lima (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To clear up the smears, what I did was revert (not to my own version, but to one last edited by Cuchaillain) Lima's addition of phrases like "a number of websites attribute..." and my personal favourite, "The book has drawn mixed reviews: see Amazon.com Customer Reviews...". He has taken what should be arguments on a talk page, and made them into the article itself. I also did not refuse to add citations, I expressed confusion about what exactly he wanted cited because he said he wanted citations proving that the Bible meant one thing, not another - which led me to respond that "I am not your priest, I cannot "answer" which is the true interpretation anymore than you can demand that I provide a citation about which is the true religion." - when he said he wanted citations of those translations, I then provided seven. If you view the diffs that Lima has provided, you'll notice my edit summary actually asks him to add citation -tags if he feels a fact is in dispute, I only objected to his rephrasing of things to say "In the book of Matthew, Jesus says X, which some people have falsely claimed means Y, but really a number of websites and Amazon user forum comments prove it means Z". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Faults (alleged faults?) in details do not justify global censorship. Thanks for not reverting once again.  If you have removed your ban on edits by me, may we proceed in the normal way of Wikipedia editors, who try to respond to citation requests and do not hog articles for themselves alone?  Then we can close this discussion without waiting for comments by others.
 * (I prefer not to repeat my comment on the complaint about the lack of citation tags on the part of someone who kept reverting them out of existence. May we please let this matter rest also?)  Lima (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm operating off the fact you suffer from paranoid delusions. There is no "global censorship", I've invited you to add citation tags to facts you dispute, and to propose changes on the talk page, and once they've gained acceptance, to add them to the article. The only thing I am doing is removing your attempts to re-write the article wholesale to match your religious beliefs. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I must renew my appeal for comments by others. Lima (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that, last month, Sherurcij was complaining not of an alleged absence of "fact" tags by me but of a . Lima (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have one piece of interjection. The editing I've been exposed to has always followed the path: edit, revert, discuss, consensus. There is none of that in this article. Lima is making huge edits and downplaying their siginficance, and Sherurcij is reverting them en masse and then covering up by claiming Lima won't discuss. My suggestion is to pick a singular edit that you wish to put in place and make reference to it here on the talk page. Then we can discuss a single edit, in context, without having to debate the entirety of the article and the validity of personal belief systems. As a religious topic I can tell that the propensity for OR is quite high, mostly because people are quite certain they "know" what the Bible says (just ask anyone why Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden, then look it up). Anything that is not a plainly stated fact should be cited as comming from a source (see Genesis argument above). If we break this down into singular edits we may be able to work through this. Padillah (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent proposal. Which of the four edits that I made to the "The War" section (one for each paragraph) would Sherurcij like to begin with?  What part of that edit is not backed up by sources?  How should it be rephrased?  I accept that rephrasing may well be beneficial: other articles are licked into shape precisely by such a joint effort of improving the wording.  Lima (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, I've asked for this several times - I think we should revert to the "pre-Lima" version, then Lima proposes his individual changes on the talk page, people discuss them, revise them a bit, come up with something everybody can grudgingly agree with, and it's inserted into the article. It seems easier (and better for the project) to put up the "default" and then discuss additions/revisions, rather than throw up the "mass rewrite" and then discuss deletions from it. So, assuming we start from the default - pick a change Lima, and argue for it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Padillah was saying that we should revert. Let the matter we are discussing remain on the page: both the addition and the "fact" tags that have been added to the previous text.  Then you can, if you wish, add your own "fact" tags to the added matter.  Isn't that how editing is normally done?  You do not have ownership rights on the article.
 * For simplicity, I suggest we start with the shortest paragraph, the fourth and last. It is only three lines.  What do you want changed in it?  Lima (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Padillah was or wasn't saying that. But, personally, if I had the choice, I would say that. The presence of a "fact" tag can be grounds for immediate removal of the content in question in and of itself. On that basis, I do think that it might be best to revert to the last previous version without these numerous "fact" tags, and then discuss which content should be included into the article from that point. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good call, John. At this point, the article has a long way to go, and it won't get there by edit warring.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be my preference for our "default" - right after we agreed to remove the infobox. (And of course, people will remember I was the person most in favour of the infobox, so I'll head off any Lima-whinging beforehand and point out it's not "my" version at all...) - it's the last version that didn't have a messy outlay or any large disagreements; we'd just lost the infobox and the article was fairly stable. Can we agree to start from this point (and remove the Comics reference as  per below?) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could live with that. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is not at all what I meant. This is a WP article and if you have a contention with a part of the article you tag it and then come here to discuss it. fact tagging is not grounds for immediate removal. And if someone did that could be reverted and the person sent to the talk page to participate in the discussion. Agreeing on a certain past version as the "official" version goes against WP policy for protection so I'm almost positive it would be considered unacceptable for simple edits. Just pick a conflict and ask questions about it, it's not a hard theory to grasp. Padillah (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am indeed grateful to John Carter for intervening. But perhaps I misunderstand his meaning.  Does he really suggest that anything Sherurcij opposes may not be inserted in the article, but must first be proposed on the Talk page and remain there until he deigns to grant it his approval?  Don't his actions indicate that he will most likely keep up his opposition, claim that there is thus no consensus about the proposed addition, and thus maintain his ownership of the article?  Why grant Sherurcij exceptional privileges?  Is it not better to let others also edit the article (I am not referring to a general rewrite) and to remove what they write only after he brings forward specific reasons for doing so?  For instance what reason can he bring up against the addition that I invited him to discuss first (Luke 10:18 has Jesus say: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". "In context, this statement refers to Christ's disciples winning a great victory over evil (Luke 10:19) and is not about Satan being literally cast out of heaven.") with the last quotation being from a rather authoritative Bible commentary, backed up by several other commentaries?  Is this unsourced?  Is it off-topic?  As for style, that can be fixed.  If the substance is good and apposite, I don't see why a non-Sherurcij editor should be prohibited from making this edit.  But Sherurcij refuses to discuss this edit, demanding that without his nihil obstat it may not be put in the article.  Lima (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit I don't entirely understand where your strange belief I'm your enemy comes from; and nobody is suggesting that I have exceptional privileges, just like I have never claimed to have "ownership" of the article like you seem to like to claim. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, act as an ordinary editor would, and give some specific reason why my addition at the end of the "The War" section is inadmissible. Thank you.  Lima (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your use of user-added italics that are not in the original quote, would be a good place to start. They contravene NPOV guidelines. In addition, rather than giving the impression that there are multiple interpretations, you flat-out say "In context, this means..." which again reads more like a high school report, than an encyclopaedia. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you call a flat-out is a quotation. And you are free to add a contrary view for balance. As for the italics (which can be remedied by adding "emphasis added" - thanks for drawing attention to this), I never knew, and still do not know, that such a matter justifies deleting the whole sentence.  Lima (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That still does not justify adding emphasis which is lacking in the original. In fact, such goes against guidelines. Also, the statement, "In context, this means" is completely unsuitable to an encyclopedia article. It could be said "person x has interpreted this as meaning" with a direct citation to the source for such a statement, but the blanket phrasing used is completely unacceptable. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article actually says: "The Cleveland Bible Commentary says: 'In context, this statement refers to ...'" Isn't that what you've just asked for - complete with direct citation to the source?  Should I have added "(emphasis added)" to this too? :) Lima (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I support Cúchullain's deletion of the personal (and therefore off-topic) attack on Sherurcij. However, he also removed my invitation to Sherurcij: "Any further comment on the now adjusted close of the 'The War' section?" The adjustment was in response to his first comments. Further adjustments would follow further reasonable observations. Lima (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the future, it would really help if, instead of having someone say "my additions", they added a link to the changes being discussed, so that we could all be certain we were talking about the same thing, as opposed to just discussing "my edits", making everyone guess which specific edits are being discussed. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comics characters
Are we seriously going to entertain these entries? Doesn't this diminish the weight of the mythology? I'm a comic book advocate but I don't know that I'd put them on the same list as Paradise Lost. Padillah (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. Ceoil  sláinte 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, buíochas, Ceoil. That I agreed with Padillah is evident from my attempt at a general revision, where, after hesitation, I left just one such character.  Paradise Lost I moved to the body of the article: I know of no other attempt to actually describe the "war".
 * (I hope Padillah was not referring to that general revision when he said I am making "huge edits". I did make that huge edit; but when I found that only Cúchullain dared to speak up against Sherurcij's revert, I immediately let it be.  We have not been and are not (at least at present) discussing that general revision. I admit that I would like editors to make a comparison between my revised version and the present version.  But it is the present version that we are dealing with now.  The four edits I have made to the "The War" section of the present version are not, to my mind, huge.  But perhaps they are to Padillah's.  And I will not quarrel about how huge is huge.)  Lima (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no complaints either way, "X in popular culture" entries have always bothered me, I mean if you're going to name all the Hollywood movies about the Peninsular War, are you also going to do the same on World War II? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an "almost" remarkable Red Herring argument!--75.143.200.179 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More of a Slippery slope argument, than a Red herring. I assume you got the two confused? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to be crass but I think its best to "shoot on sight" "X in popular culture" sections. Good move with Paradise Lost: not a big fan of "see also" either; if the link is not in the article body or covered by the cats then well, why is it there at all. Ceoil  sláinte 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see the argument for keeping the "See also" references for Heavenly Host and Grigori. While not directly related to the War of Heaven, they are very closely-tied terms that would offer readers a fuller understanding of this pheneomena. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We need more editors on this subject
I think that one problem we are encountering is the limited number (read: 2) of editors that were participating in editing this article lends itself directly to conflict: when there are only two people it's not hard to end up with "me vs. him". Let's see if we can't find a few more editors to help take the burden of discussion and defense of each single persons shoulders. Padillah (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Padillah. Lima (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still looking for other editors to be involved? I'm pretty impartial on this topic, apart from being a Christian - I subscribe to the Eastern Orthodox approach when it comes to pre-human theological history  :).  I'm happy to take a look at it and toss my 2 cents in.   Credo From Start    talk  17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are. Thank you for any input you can lend. Just pick a citation tag and start there. padillaH (review me)(help me) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Myth
Does this story appear in the Christian Bible? If not, when/where did the idea come from. Is there some religious text or document that first explained this myth? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus
I merged the second para into the lead. Actually my interst in the article is because of Bruegel; shame his remarkable painting doesnt have an article of its own. Ceoil Non visto ... Provvedi 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of The War section
Okay, since you asked for more opinions.... The second half of the section "The War" reads like it's been through World Edit War 2. Here's where I see some issues: Here we've got a "citation needed" tag directly before 2 cites - if the cites are bad, get rid of them, otherwise, get rid of the tag?. One of the problems is that someone's used the reference list as a footnoting area... this probably not a good idea. While this one isn't explicitly at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a Bible Commentary - if it needs explanatory footnoting it probably needs to be re-written. This is really really non-contextual. I know what it means, but the Whore of Babylon is not exactly a well-known and well-understood topic. This sentence is dripping with POV. The "supposed insurrection" implies that a) someone says there was an insurrection - but not who said it, and b) that whoever it was that did say there was an insurrection doesn't have any proof and may be full of BS ("supposed"). Based on the quotation marks, I THINK this is a quote from something, but it doesn't really say WHAT it's from - the two references listed are merely Bible verses, and contain no commentary on their own. If this is not a quote, it's original research and needs to go. If it is a quote it needs proper citation and some quote blocking.
 * ...of Heaven as punishment for their insurrection. [citation needed][14][15] 
 * That the "war in heaven" of Revelation 12:7 is connected with the church (the woman of 12:1-6)..., 
 * and so with a period long after the supposed insurrection of Lucifer
 *  "Neither here nor elsewhere do biblical authors give speculative 'explanations' about the origin or Satan or evil. Such a myth had developed in pre-Christian Judaism (1-2 En.), and there are fragmentary echoes of it in the New Testament (Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4). That is not the picture in this story, which does not take place in primeval times but at the eschatological time of the establishment of God's kingdom by the life, death, and exaltation of Jesus (see Luke 10:18; John 12:31)."

Overall, I think there might be some value in scrapping the entire section, save the first paragraph. The first paragraph is fairly well-cited and coherent; The rest of it could use a rewrite to indicate what the story says and contain very little Bible commentary, rebuttal or complex theories... I'd say toss in a recap of Milton, then add a couple of the relevant Bible verses along with cited commentary that indicates why these verses may apply to The War of Heaven - but not why they may NOT apply. We're looking for an enclyclopedic entry on a portion of Christian Mythology, not to solve the infinite mysteries of the kingdom :).

A last maintenance item - and I'd do this myself except I do most of my editing on a very restricted network that does not have access to wikisource - all the bible references, inline or in the ref list, should be wikilinked to the appropriate place on wikisource.

The rest of this article looks really nice! I hope I'm not too overboard on this - you did ask for additional input *wink*. I'd be bold and just make my own changes, but I think a little discussion in these areas might be a good idea since this has some edit conflict history. Credo From Start   talk  18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed.
 * ...of Heaven as punishment for their insurrection.[citation needed][14][15] "Citation" 14 reads: "Sources[clarify] differ whether the angels were thrown to Earth, or to Hell" - unspecified sources (!) given as proof of a statement! "Citation" 15: "Revelation 12:7-9" (this is wikilinked to the Wikisource text) - with no indication whatever that the passage is about a supposed/alleged primeval war!  These so-called citations should have been eliminated long ago; but one editor guarded them.
 * That the "war in heaven" of Revelation 12:7 is connected with the church (the woman of 12:1-6)..., and so with a period long after the supposed insurrection of Lucifer.  It is the article itself that says that there was an insurrection - without quoting any source as proof that there was one.  It quotes passages from the Bible, but it offers no evidence that those passages were about the supposed/alleged insurrection and not about other matters. The woman mentioned in Rev 7 is not the Whore of Babylon.  Far from it!  The article itself says what, according to the several sources quoted, she represents and why that undermines the earlier unsourced statement in the article that the passage is about a primeval event.
 * "Neither here nor elsewhere do biblical authors give speculative 'explanations' about the origin or Satan or evil. Such a myth ... The source is given in the footnote, almost the first words of the page that shows up (p. 800) if you click on the link. So it is legitimate.
 * Overall, I think there might be some value in scrapping the entire section, save the first paragraph. ... I agree (although I do wonder whether the source that attributes to unnamed works by two figures of the past curiously precise knowledge of the number of angels fighting on either side is really a reliable source).

So if, as Credo suggests, the section were to be scrapped, would it perhaps be a good idea to go back to the text of 17 June at 17:37? The first paragraph of the present section on the war could easily be inserted into it. Lima (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I assumed the "Whore of Babylon/Woman" nonsense was actually yours - it's certainly not mine. If all three of us are agreed, I think it can be deleted carte-blanche. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I really like the revision Lima linked as a starting point, or at least the two sections marked "War in heaven" and "The fallen angels". There's a little bit of possible original research there in this passage: This image of a "war in heaven" at the end of time became added to the story of a fall of Satan at the beginning of time, a fall involving other angels too, in view of the phrase "the dragon and his angels"... the cite is good for the quote "dragon and his angels", but it doesn't really mention how the end of time is linked to the beginning of time. It's a lot more coherent than the current text, though. I'm not sure the revision should be taken up wholesale (I'd have to look into the section entitled "Reasons given for Satan's Fall" a little more), but maybe rip "The Fallen Angels" and "War in Heaven" from that revision and replace the current "The War"? Credo From Start   talk  21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to find a serious source that holds that the "war in heaven" in Revelation 12 refers to a beginning-of-time war, though this idea is found among non-experts, as is evident from comments in blogs and forums, unsuitable for citation here. Perhaps Sherurcij, who believes that the passage does refer to a primeval war, would kindly provide a serious source.  Unlike most other commentators, John W. Ritenbaugh seems to suggest the past when writing about 12:4, but then he leaps ahead to the distant future when he gets to comment on 12:7-8.  Lima (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the source meets WP:RS requirements, whether "serious" or not, it's probably sufficient for inclusion. Could there perhaps be articles in magazines related to one or more groups which make such comments which have dealt with the topic? I acknowledge that such a statement makes certain assumptions which might not be valid, but if there is any validity to it they might be one of the best places to start. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found something that should do, a quite serious/reliable source, namely the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 4. It says: "When Latter-day Saints speak of the 'war in heaven', they generally mean the conflict in the premortal life that began when Lucifer, in a rebellion against God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, sought to overthrow them. … John the Revelator (Rev. 12:4-9) … referred to the war".  You can find the text here.
 * Can we now entrust Credo with editing the article using this as a source for the statement that the Rev 12:7 image of a "war in heaven" at the end of time (the ODCC and perhaps all reliable/serious Bible commentaries say it is an eschatological, end-of-time, vision) has been added to the story of a fall of Satan at the beginning of time? At least Mormons have added it.
 * Editors can then collaborate in improving Credo's text (not reverting it). Lima (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can start with that - the diff provided by Lima along with the Mormonism quote. I'll refactor the section in "Religious interpretations and variations" that mentions the LDS view to be included in "The War" section as well. I have a feeling I'm going to be tied up for a bit starting in 10 minutes or so (long story), but I'll try to get it done in the next day or so.  Credo From Start    talk  20:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I put together a slightly modified version of the version in the diff Lima provided and added an additional source. I'm not sure this is good for a final version but I think it's a decent starting place. Credo From Start    talk  22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Large changes on Jul 28
Lima, in defference to the fact that we have seen no movement on the citation tags for almost a month I have no problem with the changes you've made. I would suggest that they be made in a more manageable fasion next time to give us each a chance to deal with the individual changes. WikiDiff is not the best file diff and it's easier to see what's getting changed when it's done in smaller chunks. Also, 2 - 3,000 character edits get more scrutiny by bots and vandal-fighters and attract what may be unwanted atention. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Padillah, for keeping an eye on this article. The changes are perhaps not as great as you think. Apart from the division into sections with headings, the differences are as follows:


 * 1) Of the previous first three paragraphs, the second and third, which were on supposed "catalysts" (of Satan's rebellion, not of the war) have been merged with the last two paragraphs of the previous section "War in heaven", which also dealt with supposed causes of Satan's rebellion.
 * 2) The first paragraph - this is the biggest change - has been replaced with a quotation of the only Bible passage that does speak of a war in heaven, to which has been added the present section headed "Association with the motif of the Fall of Satan", giving the link between that passage and the rest of the article.
 * 3) http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/premortal/war_eom.htm was properly Wikified as War in Heaven
 * 4) There were two punctuation corrections.
 * I am unaware of any further changes.
 * I believe these changes were justified, especially in view of the citation-less statements previously in the first two paragraphs. But I would indeed like to hear the views of others. Lima (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was one other change: removal of the heading "The War", which I believe is no longer necessary (if it ever was), since the whole article is supposed to be about the War. Lima (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The angels' numbers are interesting
Except for the fact that both contain the famous 666. The real number of the fighters against God is one more since Satan was an angel himself. So that number would be 133,306,669. The prime divisors of 266,613,336 are 2 3 11 101. That number has not to be changed since God is not an angel. Now guess what? 133,306,669 is a prime number. Maybe that led Satan to the haughty assumption that he could win this war. "Poor" guy: impotent, ignorant, evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.69.7 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)