Talk:Watcher (angel)

Miscellaneous
That the "Sons of God" are fallen angels is not required of the passage, however sensational as that may be. Cross referencing inside Scripture, it seems that the most likely assumption would be that the sons of men would be righteous followers of Yahweh. The well written article would be more thorough with a mention of this alternate interpretation included.

That the Book of the Watchers in Enoch is referring to the same creatures mentioned Genesis 6 is beyond any reasonable doubt, to be honest... -Hrugnir

Some Errata: There is no Verse 9 in Chapter 7 of Enoch I.  It might be in Enoch II (slavonic) or III (Greek) but for sure it's not in I.  Scholars typically only accept I as an "uncorrupted" text as II and III show other elements thrown in. Also, it is of dispute in the scholarly community on whether Enoch was derived from already known scripture or if it was actually used and drawn on by early writers: Language needs to be used to neutralize that part of the article tone.

There is also more items attributed to the angels than what the article depicts, Enoch I provides a great deal of information on this, and though some of it is conflicting, this article shouldn't be reduced but perhaps we should describe the conflicting evidence--at the bare minimun report it completely.

Azazel taught men to make swords, knives, shields and armor. Bracelets and ornaments, as well as the use of antimony. It's important to note, that what we call antimony, is different. The Egyptians called it Kohl, and it indeed was used in cosmetics. This is all detailed in Enoch I Chapter 8:1. Azazel is also responsible for working of precious Gems, coloring and dyes. Apparently learning these trades led men astray, as in verse 2 says that the men went away into impiety.

Verse 3 names Semjaza (Spells, root-cutting)  Armaros (counter-spells)  Baraqiajal (Astrology—of great importance to persians and Zoroastrianism, the father of Judaism and Christianity.)  Araqiel  taught the signs of the earth, Shamsiel signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon, Kokabel the constellations, (astrology again?)  and Ezeqeel the clouds.

The fact that there are two angels dealing with astrology, I think this definitely places historic importance on these names being placed more towards mesopotamia, though I'm not an expert on Mesopotamian mythology.

--XeNO

Source: "The Lost Book of Enoch" by Joseph B. Lumpkin

This page is in real need of footnotes. There are several passages that calim to be from Leland's Aradia. It would be tremendous if corresponding page numbers could be put in. Likewise, the article claims that Gardner wrote about the Watchers, but it doesn't state the name of the book, much less any specific reference. Without such references, the phrasing claims authority but does not actually offer any, which can be very misleading to readers. (I personally don't know if the claims are accurate, otherwise I would put in the page numbers myself. It's one of the reasons I'm looking for page numbers!)Nightwind2 (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Necessities of civilization?
"metal weapons, cosmetics, and other necessities of civilization"

I just don't know how I'd survive without my metal weapons and cosmetics. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "Grigori"
Why is the word "grigori" used in this article for the Watchers? What is the source of this word? It is not the Greek word, nor the Aramaic word, and I don't think the Ethiopic would use it. I propose that we change the word either to "egregoroi" or to "watchers", and then change the title of the article as well. If there is no objection, I will do so. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The name "Grigori" comes from The Book of the Secrets of Enoch which is a Slavonic text. The word has, then, presumably been 'Slavonicised'. This word, with this spelling, is how it normally appears in English. The Greek equivalent, Egregoroi, would be your own innovation and wouldn't reflect normal usage. Fuzzypeg★ 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use the Slavonic word in English. All the things I have read (besides this) use the term Watchers, not "Grigori". The only reason I suggested "Egregoroi" was because I thought the people who wrote this were trying to use the Greek word, but the Greek word is Egregoroi not Grigori. I think we should change all the occurences of "Grigori" to "Watchers", and include a reference to something that says that the Slavonic word is "Grigori". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're probably reading different types of literature. I know of the Grigori primarily through esoteric books discussing the Nephilim, Lilith and various related myths from different cultures. That seems to be where the most popular use of the term comes from, and google searches for grigori and egregoroi yeild 1.24 million for the former and 484 for the latter. Doing the same search in google books yeilds 2770 hits for grigori and 58 for egregoroi. I stand by my statement that Grigori is the more common form of the word, and it stands to reason that it should be in the Slavonic form, since the key literary source for the word is Slavonic. Fuzzypeg★ 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't understand--I'm not proposing Egregoroi. I think we should use the word "Watchers". We can mention that the word "Grigori" is used, if you can provide a specific reference, preferably telling where the term comes from (the Slavonic according to you). I think the title should be changed to "Watcher (spiritual being)" or something similar. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "Grigori" is widely used and well understood in literature on the subject, and seems to be the predominant term. The Watcher disambiguation page has a link to Grigori, so it's easy to find, either way. I don't see what more we could want. What do you have against the word "Grigori"? Fuzzypeg★ 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply that it's not English. The article doesn't even give a reference to say that it's Slavonic! Look at the article on the Book of Enoch. They don't use the word "Grigori", so why should we use it here? It seems totally against Wikipedia policy. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ur, against what policy in particular? This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of English words. Nephilim has an article, as does Tetragrammaton, as do Paris and Pince-nez; these aren't English words, but they are terms used in English-language discussions (some in specialised subjects). "Tetragrammaton" is more common and more recognisable than "Four-letter name"; "pince-nez" is more recognisable than "pinch-nose"; and "Grigori" is more common and recognisable than "Egregoroi" or "Watchers".
 * The policy in Naming_convention. We should use the term most English speakers would recognize. Not just in the title, but throughout! Eric Kvaalen (talk)
 * Oh, and if your only disagreement with the word is that it's not English, why was "egregoroi" your first choice for an alternative title?
 * I already explained that I only said that because I thought maybe the writers of this article were trying to use the Greek term. Eric Kvaalen (talk)
 * I don't have the Slavonic manuscripts myself, and I don't know if Grigori is simply the common latin-alphabet transliteration, or an anglicisation of the Slavonic original. If you can find precise information on this, by all means, add an explanation to the article. Fuzzypeg★ 03:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have it, and I don't find it on-line. Maybe we should ignore the term "Grigori" (except as a redirect) until we can check this. Eric Kvaalen (talk)
 * I don't mind either term, but I was curious to see how the topic was named in Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels, a well-respected reference work in this field. It turns out to have a small entry for Grigori and a much longer one for Watchers. For a general encyclopedia like WP, though, the term "Watchers" has the disadvantage of having lots of other meanings. LloydGraham (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article itself should be called "Watchers (spiritual beings)" or something like that, to distinguish it from other meanings, of course. But inside the article, we can just say "Watchers". Could you please tell us what Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels says about "Grigori"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Grigori (egoroi, egregori, "watchers") - a superior order of angels in 2nd & 5th (holy & unholy) heavens, look like men but taller than giants, permanently silent, ruler is Salamiel (En 2). For Watchers - a high order of angels, also called grigori, who never sleep. This entry goes on to summarise the fall of the angels from Enoch & Jubilees, with surprising detail on a Watcher reference in the then recently-discovered Genesis Apocryphon. Hope this helps. LloydGraham (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That still doesn't tell us what the origin of the form "Grigori" is. I am hereby requesting a move. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
I think this page should be moved to "Watcher (spiritual being)". See the discussion above ("The word Grigori"). Basically, "Grigori" is a non-English term (I don't know what language it is), which is not used in the discussions I've seen of the Book of Enoch (which is after all where the Watchers are found). I think we should use the normal English term, which is Watcher. If someone can give us a referenced statement about where the word "Grigori" comes from, we can mention that, but we shouldn't use that term as the primary term. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On balance, after reading the above discussion, it looks like it should probably have the English name, so I'm moving it to Watcher (angel), since "angel" is more concise than "spiritual being". If any references come along to show that Grigori is the established common name in English, then it should be moved back.  Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten Watchers Missing?
Someone mentioned to me that ten Watchers are unaccounted for and, by my understanding of it, she's correct.

There are two hundred Watchers. These are their leaders: "Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl." That's nineteen names.

"These are their chiefs of tens." If I'm understanding this right, and I'm not too familiar with it all, so I may be wrong, but that only adds up to one hundred and ninety. What happened to the other ten? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Book of Daniel
The explanation that "a watcher and an holy one" are one being does not satisfy me at all without a citation, as it manifestly controverts the notoriously finicky KJVB translation. I'm removing that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding what I changed
That the Mesopotamians had stellar cults, but it's easier to keep track of the sun and moon than four stars so it seems more likely that stellar cults came after solar and lunar cults. Also, I've never encountered this "the four lords" of the stars marking the equinoxes and solstices stuff outside of the article, so I deleted what was (as far as I can tell) unsourced original research. I also deleted an reduntant list of watchers and did a little formatting.

I also rearranged the article from "Book of Enoch" and "References to other Watchers" (more than half of it was about the same group) to "Book of Enoch" and "Other references to the watchers."

The Enochian interpretation of Gen. 6 (which is the most traditional) does regard the sons of god as angels, but there are a variety of viewpoints regarding Gen 6 within Christianity and Judaism. The article tended to reflect the Enochian view.

I deleted the supposed connection between the watchers and the "principalities of the air," since it is not advocated by any particularly notable theologians (but rather someone's interpretation of the writings of the notable theologian Paul). I had to change the lead in in the following paragraph, and I deleted an OR statement that confused the Archons with the Watchers. Also deleted unsourced OR statement regarding Italian witches being involved with the watchers. Just because it is original research does not make it wrong, but it sure doesn't mean it is correct. The stuff deleted was mostly interpretational and if someone notable has written stuff along these lines, then put it in with sources throughout. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the unsourced OR statement regarding Italian witches being involved with the watchers, it has been added back in with a reference to www.paganlibrary.com ... Once again it could very well be 100% correct, but that website can't possibly be considered a source can it? If it is, I apologise, but I can't find any notable published works to back it up at all, so I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.225.83 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch, there are some other links to that site that I'll remove from other article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the site, and while Raven Grimassi is a respected author on Italian witchcraft according to Raven Grimassi, that doesn't make him a reliable source for Italian witchcraft. I'm not going to add it back in, but if anyone else does, I'm going to change it to reflect that it's just Raven's ideas, not necessarily traditional Italian witchcraft (unless someone does it before me). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Count of 200 symbolic?
If there were 200 angels that fell including the leaders and 1/3rd of the angels fell from Heaven, then by simple mathematical calculation there is a static total of 600 angels that have ever existed. I cannot varify that information anywhere else in scripture. Is 200 symbolic or true count of the fallen? 99.25.82.158 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1/3rd bit comes from Revelation. The Watchers are in Genesis, or rather, Midrashim about Genesis. Different time periods. Also, please sign your posts with four tidles ( ~ ). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nephilim related
Espers(Final Fantasy VI/III) & the Jinn (Islam) are basically Nephilim. Just thought I'd share this information. I could write an entire paragraph with citations for both, but I have better things to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerrQuixota (talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, the Jinn are beings made from smokeless fire. Not half-angel half-humans.  And the espers are not specifically angels, IIRC.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an error in the first paragraph of this article. It says that Genesis 6:4 does not reveal the nephilim to be hybrid human angels. Lets take a look at the verse...

Genesis 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

The verse clearly states the angels came in to the human women and produced children with them. I will correct the error. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchers from a different perspective
Known ideas of watchers taken from the bible of christians are very hazy and indiscriptive at best. reality however is something completly different. Watchers are no more then souls of man gifted with certain abilities to aid them in God's plan. They live and die then are rebirthed to live again in a different time in a different life. They are gifted sight of many things and God pushes them to maintain the longevity of man kinds time on earth. Time as it were is fragile and can be altered with a single nundge or a passing hello. However man kinds ability to freely choose thier perspective path makes keeping the plan intact tricky at best. God knew that it would take more then angels to give man a chance to prove his/her worth to enter heaven. Watchers were created to be more of a "hands on" type. Going from one life to the next living outside the time line to ensure that it is kept solid. The mission of said watcher is not to save souls; on the contuary, it is to do whatever it takes to give man as much time as possible on earth. There are no texts in cerculation about them save one, and it was sealed away long ago and was later burned in Rome. The text contained a journal of one said watcher who wanted man to know that there was hope. The text described in great detail of what a watcher is and how one comes into ones own as a watcher. It not only described the life and death of watchers but also tells of what pain and agony watchers carry to continue to do Gods work. Watchers are not angels fallen from heaven for God cannot use angels for such deeds. Watchers are capable of wonderful things and also terrible things. They are by heart good and do things for the sake of mankind however one could constrew a watcher's deeds as evil and sinister as some actions are not accepted by mankinds socialy acceptable behaviour. Writing this I know will no doubt be scrutinized and most likely be passed off as herasy or even blasphamy; it is said that you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. In this case I can show you the truth but it is in Gods hands to let you believe. If you take nothing but one thing from this know that he told his chosen souls to carry one message to all the souls they would touch "It is not of gold, silver or the best of stock that I want from my children it is only that they belive in me and know that I love them and know that they will always be welcome in my house on earth and in heaven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Chunk removed, unref since 2009

 * Angels in Jewish folklore
 * Angels were fairly popular in Jewish folklore, which often describes them as looking like large human beings that never sleep and remain forever silent. While there are good and bad "watchers", most stories revolve around the evil ones that fell from grace when they took "the daughters of man" as their mates.

In ictu oculi (talk)

Chunk removed, questionable relevance notability to article

 * Occult writers
 * According to occultist Montague Summers 16th Century Franciscan demonologist, Lodovico Maria Sinistrari (1622–1701) while never using the name 'Watchers', referred to similar beings, which he called 'incubi' and 'succubi' as producing offspring which were the Biblical Nephilim. He associated the Incubi and Succubi with the Elemental natures of Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Montague Summers, Witchcraft and Black Magic p. 96-97. Grimassi, Raven Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft: "Sinistrari"  Richard Cavendish, in his book The Powers of Evil, suggests that the Giants mentioned in Genesis 6:4 were the Giants or Titans of Greek mythology.  He also lists the "watchers" as the fallen angels which magicians call forth in ceremonial magic. Cavendish mentions that the "watchers" were so named because they were stars, the "eyes of night."

This is pretty slim. Encyclopaedic? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Major layout changes
I've made huge changes to the main page. I've moved the Watcher's names list to the Fallen angel page to keep this page more balanced and not so heavy on 1 Enoch, even though most references to watchers come from that book. If you disagree with the change, that's fine... I wont counter a contested undo. If anything, please contribute more references to the page as it is in dire need.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To User Esoglou: Use of recension
Hi User: Esoglou,

We have to set the record straight as to what a recension is...

Based on your edit from: 16:33, 2 July 2012‎ Esoglou (talk | contribs)‎. . (17,954 bytes) (+2,294)‎. . (→‎The Grigori: not just Plat or his translation alone) (undo)

These are NOT recensions, less one... Platt's.


 * Sources using the same recension as Platt


 * sources using a different recension

A recension is NOT a commentary. Please see Definition of "recension"

Thanks,

Jasonasosa (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can think of no better word. Perhaps you can.  I refer not to the translations but to the Slavonic texts on which they are based.
 * The different translations are obviously not based on the same texts. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Miss-understanding: The use of "recension" is a very good word. Your links to such "recensions" are very bad... because most of those are commentaries of Platt's recension. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I confess to being annoyed by your telling me: "You only looked at the preview clip without actually reading the page. It wasn't a recension used by Orlov. He is a commentator, not a translator."
 * What you call "the preview clip", how do you imagine it was produced? I made it in order to help Wikipedia readers get immediately to the context of what is cited and then to the entire page and the whole book.  One click on what you call "the preview clip" and the Wikipedia reader gets to the page and can then consult other pages as well.  So please allow that I have a certain amount of intelligence and that I do not limit myself to looking at some magically produced "preview clip".
 * Your system, e.g. "", is unhelpful. What a lot of work you are imposing on the Wikipedia reader who wants to get to the source!  With the system that you are destroying, a single click on the reference brings the reader immediately to the context of the phrase, and then a click on what you call "the preview clip" immediately brings the reader to the entire page and thereby to the work as a whole.  How long do you think it takes the reader to find on the Internet the book that you refer to with "" and then to get to the page in question?  Your system is fine for a printed book, but there have been advances since printing was invented.  We now have the possibility of just clicking on hypertext links.  We should use that possibility and not pretend it doesn't exist.  We are in the 21st century!
 * Allow me the intelligence also to be aware that Orlov is quoting someone else's translation and commenting on it. Orlov doesn't have to be a translator in order to be citable in Wikipedia as a reliable secondary source.
 * A recension is not a translation ("It wasn't a recension used by Orlov. He is a commentator, not a translator"). A recension is the basis on which a translation is made.  Recensions of a work can be made before the work is translated into any language different from the original language.  I explicitly spoke of the recension "used" by Orlov, not of some translation "made" by him.  Since the word "recension" seems to be causing confusion, I will change it to "version".
 * You seem to be unaware that there is more than one text of the Slavonic Book of Enoch. At least 20 different manuscripts exist,  "quite diverse in scope and in individual readings" .  This time I am not giving an immediate hypertext link to this statement.  See how long it will take you to get to it.
 * On what grounds do you claim that the reliable secondary sources are using Platt, rather than R.H. Charles, as the source of the English translation that they choose to use? Platt was the editor of The Forgotten Books of Eden.  I have come across no statement by Platt of having himself made an independent translation of all those works.
 * Orlov's quotation from 2 Enoch 18 does not come from Platt: it has the mention of the "200 myriads" (not in Platt's book) who "turned aside from the Lord" Esoglou (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you are intelligent. I know there are many versions, manuscripts, fragments, recensions and the like. I just think it's sloppy editing to just weblink to a search engine with search word(s) a User puts in. Time and care is required to go through each source and ensure that the information is correct in its whole context without use of previewing tidbits. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Grigori content move/deletion
Hi User:Esoglou,

Regarding your edit: (cur | prev) 11:08, 3 July 2012‎ Esoglou (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,787 bytes) (+3,049)‎. . (→‎The Grigori: restored material deleted without adequate explanation) (undo)

Okay, so here is where we are at between both pages Fallen angel and Watcher (angel)... we both keep duplicating the material on both pages. I believe that the content for each page should be more than slightly different. We are both moving in that direction already, because we both agree that the leading intros for the Grigoris on both pages are different. The idea should be to reduce redundancy. Here's how I propose that:


 * 1) On the Fallen angel page, a strong discussion about the 200 fallen can be built on that page, due to references of other Enochian texts, not solely based on 2 Enoch's Grigori. (Falls more in line with the Watchers as a whole context.)
 * 2) On this Watcher (angel) page, a strong discussion can be built about the whereabouts of the Grigori. After your last undo edit... the focus is just on fifth heaven, but there is no mention of second heaven.
 * 3) Alternative: make a Grigori main page to put it all on and then just make a one sentence summary on each of the pages we are working on and link them together that way. I wont proceed with this alternative without your consent.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Satanail

 * No synthesizing, such as combining the (very probable) idea that the member of the order of (arch)angels mentioned in 2 Enoch 29 and his followers were Sathanail and the Grigori of chapter 18 (even that should in Wikipedia be presented as a view of some scholar(s) or other, not as a fact) with the idea that the Grigori were Watchers, and ending up with the statement that 2 Enoch 29 is telling of the casting down of the Watchers. To put that statement in Wikipedia, you must cite a reliable source that says it, instead of making an argument that it must be so.


 * "Here Satanail with his angels was thrown down from the height" - GIM khlyudov manuscript to 2 Enoch 29.
 * "29. h. The name Satanail is present here only in P's [GIM khlyudov manuscript (See page 92 for identification of the P symbol)] (secondary) ch. headings." -
 * This is not WP:SYNTH. It is a direct quote from the manuscript used only in the longer recension of 2 Enoch.
 * Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not synthesis to say that a heading in manuscript P identifies the (arch)angel of 2 Enoch 29 as Satanail. It would be unsourced to say on that basis alone that the (arch)angel of 2 Enoch 29 is Satanail (manuscript P is not the only manuscript and, if I remember, is not one of the two manuscripts whose texts the Charlesworth book gives in English translation).  It would be synthesis to say on the basis of an argumentation by you that the angels thrown down in 2 Enoch 29 are Watchers.  Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see how this new edit rolls then. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you were still getting Wikipedia to state: "In the longer recension of 2 Enoch in 29:1-7,[13] "Satanail[14][15] with his angels was thrown down from the height", instead of saying that one manuscript alone, which represents the longer recension but which the Charlesworth book considers inferior to manuscript J, says that Satanail ...
 * (If you are wondering how the Charleworth book then includes that heading in its text, perhaps you will accept that the explanation must be that the book states that it fills in lacunae in the texts of manuscripts A and J by adding bits from other manuscripts of the same families.) Esoglou (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

200

 * No synthesizing, as by saying that, in spite of the general agreement among 2 Enoch manuscripts that only three Grigori went down (voluntarily) to the earth, the Grigori who went down were 200, because other books speak of 200 Watchers going down. It is not for us to say that the manuscripts are wrong unless we cite the reliable sources as agreeing on that.
 * You would actually need to site a source to say that it is in "general agreement" or something close to that context. You cannot go looking up all 20 manuscripts yourself to propose that they are generally all in agreement to a certain number, because that is considered WP:OR. In the case of Enochian texts we have, 3, 200, 200 thousand, and 200 myriad, so you cannot just settle on any one of these numbers just because 1 Enoch may have said so.Jasonasosa (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 2:
 * And just to show you how assinine your weblink is, which is related to this whole topic. You ran a search for "grigori three of them went"...
 * *Sources using one version of 2 Enoch
 * This is what came up listed in the first 5 and I don't even want to keep on going:
 * The Forgotten Books of Eden - Page 226 (GOOD)
 * The Other Bible: Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Christian Apocrypha, ... - Page 498 (GOOD)
 * Angelology (BAD - Subjects: Fiction › Fantasy › Contemporary)
 * The Messianic Temple - Page 177 (BAD - Self published crap)
 * The Secular And the Sacred Harmonized - Page 139 (BAD - AuthorHouse Self publishing co.)
 * Jasonasosa (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting as "good" some of the sources that Google turned up as stating that 2 Enoch says three Grigori descended. They should be enough.  You can find more good ones also here.  You mistakenly cited page 119 of Charlesworth's book as saying that 200 myriads descended.  It does not.  Look it up.  And you ignore the fact that the same book elsewhere quotes 2 Enoch (long recension) as saying three and gives an unclear indication of how many the shorter recension gives as going down to the earth. You cite a source to which I have no access (DDD) and which you would have to quote from to demonstrate that you have not misinterpreted it as you misinterpreted page 119 of the other book. So it is not an objective presentation to say that 2 Enoch (short version) says 200 or in later manuscripts 200 hundred thousand (i.e. 200 myriads), and that the long recension of Enoch 2 says 200 myriads, while saying that some translations - not 2 Enoch, mind you - say they were only three!  Although I wish I had more time for it, I trust my presentation is more objective.  Esoglou (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Heavens

 * 2 Enoch 18 does indicate that the angels whom Enoch saw suffering in the second heaven were also Grigori, brethren of those in the fifth heaven. It is scarcely worth mentioning them in the Fallen Angels article, since they are not actually presented as having fallen in the sense of being thrown down.  Neither in reality are the fifth-heaven Grigori said to have been cast down, and it seems that the only reason to mention them in the Fallen Angel article is as context for the information in 2 Enoch 29 about angels that were thrown down from the height (with no indication of where they were thrown down to).  But mentioning the second-heaven angels in the Watcher (angel) article  is reasonable.
 * I agree with pretty much everything that you say here in this section. I'd like to elaborate more on the Watcher (angel) page about there whereabouts, about fifth and second heaven...what scholars commentaries are on these places and anymore background information about the Grigori we can come up with that doesn't necessarily pertain to the fallen ones. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The fallen

 * It is a defect of the Fallen Angels article that it presents the begetters of the Nephilim and the Watchers (neither group is presented as falling in a spatial sense) as "fallen angels" in apparently the same sense as the other groups mentioned: the angels of 2 Enoch 29; Lucifer; the Satan of Lk 10:18; the angels of Rv 12:9, all of whom "fell" in a spatial sense or were "thrown down". Indeed, the "fall" of at least the Satan of Lk 10:18 is merely spatial, with no reference there to a fall in the sense of sinning.  It seems logical to limit the article to angels were actually fell or were made to fall in a sense other the phrase about the just man "falling" seven times a day.  Then there would be a place for the fall of the angels of 2 Enoch 29, with just a short mention of the fact that certain writers consider those angels to be Grigori or Watchers and that their leader was Sathanail, who later became Satan.
 * Making the Grigori the object of a separate article would resolve none of these problems and would doubtless instead add to them.
 * Thanks for not reinserting the idea that the angels of 2 Enoch 29 were thrown down before the creation of man from the fifth heaven, where instead Adam's descendant Enoch found them to be; and for not reinserting as relevant to the Grigori what the Charlesworth-edited book says on page 130: "In the Book of John the Evangelist, the angels seduced by Satan are in the fifth heaven". Esoglou (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to go over everything line by line, one at a time. We have come to the point of not making progress. I'm standing at the line of [undo] at the wake of an edit war. I dont want to go back and forth with you like this. I dont want to reedit and make mistakes, some of which you brought up that may be true, because of constant editing and re-editing, trying to make it work based on discussions. You're even thanking me for not reinserting material that wasn't even mine to begin with. First off, we aren't even on the right discussion page. I invite you to come over to the Fallen angel talk page to go over every line until we get it right and come to an agreement. Otherwise, we will both be on here everyday, undoing each others work until one of dies. Please come to Talk:Fallen angel page. Thanks,Jasonasosa (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Elioud
Elioud (i.e. children of Nephalim) appear in both Enoch 1 and the Book of Jubilees which are the source of the Watchers tradition and are intimately related to the tradition of the Watchers (they are either their grandchildren or great-grandchildren depending upon the reading), and most notably appear in the versions found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are closer to the source than the Ge'ez version for which the most recent available manuscripts are from the 17th century, and the concept (of Nephalim having wicked children) is present in Genesis 6:4. So, reverting an edit to reference them on the grounds that it is a barely related reference found in only a single manuscript is not appropriate. Moreover, the concept is particularly relevant because it goes to what the phrase "son of God" means as used by the Essenes and other Messianic movements in Judiasm at around the time of the dawn of Christianity. It is a little known footnote to the generally understood story of the Nephalim, but an important one that is deeply infused into the story of the Watchers generally as part of the same myth. Ohwilleke (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If I am wrong (and I probably am), I apologize. This source, given at Elioud, has this note to 1 Enoch 7:11, "One Greek manuscript adds to this section, 'And they [the women] bore to them [the Watchers] three races–first, the great giants. The giants brought forth [some say 'slew'] the Naphelim, and the Naphelim brought forth [or "slew"] the Elioud. And they existed, increasing in power according to their greatness.'"  Perhaps I was misled in thinking that this addition (with its uncertainty about "brought forth" or "slew") was in only a single Greek manuscript, against the consensus of the other manuscripts.  I also admit I should have looked for a source that gives the text of the mention in the Book of Jubilees, which you will doubtless indicate.  Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will make an effort to provide some additional chapter and verse (literally) for you on that. I put the easiest source with a quotation to show that there were differences between the manuscripts in the article, but have not yet put together the exhaustive list of all the quotations such as Jubilees 7:21-25, or included a full analysis of all of the manuscript traditions and works derivative of the Jubilees and Enoch literature.Ohwilleke (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of alternative explanation?
My revision added on 05:43, 20 August 2016 with an alternative explanation (which needs no sources and is there only for the record) was unjustifiably deleted. According to the guidelines, why was this information not allowed to be in the article? An alternative explanation does not need sources if it is a popular opinion, particularly if it is correct. For example, if I were to go to the page on Sasquatch and post several popular opinions on what bigfoot, yeti, etc. actually are, how am I going to source that? I'm not going to link to pseudo-science and conspiracy websites as "evidence," the information is simply there as an alternative explanation that is among the population. Please justify resetting my edit which has accurate and good information that is not necessarily contrary to what is presented in the article? It is not original research or my personal opinion (although it is that too), it is an alternative explanation that can help people understand what the Watchers/nephilim/grigori actually are. How and why should I prove with a source from the internet what can not be proven but only presented as an alternative explanation? What would you like, me to capture a grigori and autopsy its body and prove to you what they actually are? LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8421:C23C:3460:7BED:1271:B486 (talk)
 * "which needs no sources" -- Wrong, see WP:CITE and WP:NOR.
 * For pages regarding mythological or pseudoscientific topics, mainstream academic study of those topics as cultural phenomena are cited.
 * "It is not original research or my personal opinion (although it is that too)," -- then it is original research and your personal opinion. You can't have it both ways.
 * "it is an alternative explanation that can help people understand what the Watchers/nephilim/grigori actually are." -- that assumes that they exist, when all that is known of them is their appearance in Second Temple period literature.
 * "What would you like, me to capture a grigori and autopsy its body and prove to you what they actually are?" -- no, you need to either capture a grigori, autopsy it, get the results published in a mainstream academic source, and then cite that source; or else cite sources that examine the beliefs and literature regarding grigori as cultural phenomena. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ANd for the record, I was the one who deleted it - justifiably and according to fundamental policy which Ian has explained very well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources (see WP:RS say about a subject, and if something can't be sourced and is disputed it should be deleted. Doug Weller  talk 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Ophanim
I suggest referencing the Ophanim ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophanim ) here, as the Watchers are from this Order.

2601:8A:C180:70:FDEE:5B50:D4CE:5906 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)