Talk:Fallen angel/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 12:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, i have to say that I will be available to do this review until 30 January, after which I will be on a spiritual retreat for two weeks. But if you are active, which you appear to be, it shouldn't take that long.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. I will edit the points you have mentioned on the weekend, if you are fine with that. Since I have at least 3 exams at the end of the month, I can not give my works on Wikipedia the same attention as I usually do. I apologize for that and wish I could answer more quickly. Nevertheless, I think we can finish the review before the end of the month. I have taken note of the mentioned criteria and keep in mind the changes, that must be done soon.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issues

• A copyright violation scan renders some odd similarities with at least three other webpages. I find it highly unlikely that all of these websites have copied from the Wiki article, and not the other way around. This can be fixed though, by rewriting the text marked in this scan, to make it sufficiently different from the websites it is copied from.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am checking all the websites that are listed as possible copyright violations:

1. A sample sentence that matches with this webpage from 2014 was found in this Wiki article in 2012, so the website copied, and not this article;
2. A sample sentence that matches with this webpage from September 2018 was found in this Wiki article in 2012, so the website copied, and not this article;
3. A sample sentence that matches with this undated webpage was found in this Wiki article in 2018, but is was gradually written into the article, so the website copied, and not this article.

So my apologies: no copyright was violated in writing this wiki article, other websites copied from this article instead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Overview

The article is interesting to read, and covers many aspects of the subject.

1. The article's language is a bit unusual at times (... their affirmation was also opposed ...; ... a satisfactory consensus that explains the decision-framework of angels ...). Furthermore, you sometimes leave out some basic context, such as time periods. Below, I will do a detailed review.

2. MOS: A few caveats:

• The lead contains citations, which is only needed for information not in the body of the text, or information that is very controversial. So most of these citations can be removed.
• External links to religious texts within the body of the text (as opposed to the references and external links) can only refer to Wikisource texts, not to websites outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, such as http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. Some bible text links are already done correctly.
• There are "see also" items that are redundant with wikilinks in the body of the text.

3. References layout:

• No dead links.
• Some references (In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalypic Literature and Testaments edited by James H. Charlesworth) are not in the reference list below the article, because they have not been put in a <ref>...</ref> format.

• This reference appears to have been removed now?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some references have no isbn or oclc numbers. Please add those, for easier identification.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Is the book from Charlesworth from 2010 or 2011?

4. Reliable sources:

• Usually you only use reliable sources, but in some parts of the article (Most sources quote 2 Enoch as stating that those who descended to earth were three,) Google search engine results are referred to. These are not reliable sources for any information.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Did you use the book by Platt at all in the article? It doesn't seem so. If not, you should remove it from the reference section.
• https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/angels/ is not a reliable source. Please remove or replace it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

5. Original research: Some parts use a Google search results or primary source material without interpretation from secondary reliable sources. These parts need to be rewritten or removed.

6. Broadness: Will check later. Looks comprehensive though.

7. Focus: Some content is too detailed, e.g. in which there are three mentions, twice in the singular (v. 13, 23), once in the plural (v. 17). The relevance of some paragraphs isn't clear. You might want to check the article for that. But the article is not too lengthy.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Relevant and licensed.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done,  Removed,  Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Second Temple period

• What period are you referring to here? from which year to which year? Done
• The Second Book of Enoch (Slavonic Enoch) refers to the same beings of the (First) Book of Enoch, but in the Greek transcription as Grigori.[25] How is different from the first book? Done
• A number of apocryphal works, including 1 Enoch (10.4),[26] link the angels transgression with the Great Deluge.[27] This is cryptic for an uninformed reader. If you are summarizing from the subsections, then you don't need to. Better just jump to the subsections straight away without summary, because it is confusing. Removed
• it is Azazel who is rebuked by Enoch Who is Enoch? Done
• by shifting the sinfulness of mankind and their misdeeds to illicit angel instruction by blaming? By shifting the blame? Done

• What are you trying to say here by shifting?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

By "shifting" I mean, that the "origin of sin" moves from one mythological pint to another. From the "beginning of sin by humans" moved to the angels.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Er... Do you mean that the angels were regarded as the origin of sin instead of humans themselves? The blame was attributed to them?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

yes, the blame was attributed to the angels instead of to huamns (for example, commonly Adam and Eve are blamed for corrupting the earth, by eating from the forbidden tree) does it sounds better that way?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited it now (just wanted to say: Ironically, the expression "shifted towards, was as far as I remember, used by the author of the source. I thought it sounds kind of odd, but otherwise would express what happened, soemhow)

Christianity attributed the sin of fallen angels towards the beginning of history, instead of to humans Do you mean: "Christianity attributed human sin to fallen angels, instructing humans in wrong ways from the beginning of history"?

not really. I just want to point out the change from {....humans......sin......} to {sin.......humans.......} . I rewrote the sentence and hope it became more clear now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• found in the Book of Enoch, but not in later Jewish and Christian theology. What do you mean by theology here? Later books, part of the Bible? Doing...
• staying in silence and sadness, being silent and sad? Doing...
• for their brethren For their fellow angels? Done
• The Grigori "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne", ... equal in rank with the Lord's power (2 Enoch 29:1–4). Do you have a secondary source to show that these sentences are relevant? Done

I regard it as relevant, since it shows the influences on Christianity by 2 Enoch. The source I added, also refers to that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The source I added, also refers to that You mean Schwartz 2006, or a primary source? My concern is to use secondary sources as your main guideline for the article's content, not primary.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess I got your point now. (there were a reference to the watchers in the primary source without a secondary source stating how they are important) I added a source here now. I kept some reference to the original source, but they are now supported by the given secondary sources (Schwartz and Andrei Orlov)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• It isn't clear how the number of angels descending is relevant: Most sources quote 2 Enoch as stating that those who descended to earth were three ... 200 walking in their train" The relevance of the paragraph next Chapter 29, referring to the second day of creation (before the creation of human beings), says that "one from out the order of angels isn't clear either. You are just quoting primary sources without any interpretation. Removed
• The section about the third book is too small, either merge or delete. Removed
• What is the Book of Jubilees? Briefly state this in a few words. Done
• another angel called Mastema refers to the Watchers. He asks God to spare some of the demons, so he might use their aid to lead humankind into sin. So is he referring to Watchers or demons? Not done

I also comment it here, it is not possible to decide. It maybe ether demons or fallen angels. I would regard them as demons (for several reasons), but that is only my opinnion. Scholary workds also pointed out, that it is not clear from the Books of Jubilees. So I can not proide a better explanation here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You should use secondary sources instead, not quote primary without any secondary sources to explain.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The quote I wrote here is explained by the following source ("The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees"). I thought it would be helpfull to see, which speech of the figure Mastema the sources refer to and to which extend Mastema "requests permission", here. Since I thought that this sentence is unambiguously and explained thereafter, this quote could be helpful (I think here of this: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources that it could be helpful, sometimes. However, if you think it is not, I would simply remove it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, okay, well, let's go back to my initial question: how is Mastema referring to Watchers exactly?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote it into "leader of evil spirits", the link to the Watchers would be in relation the the idea of Enochian angels (who are physical, can be chained etc.), but I rewrote it to stick more to the source itself.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unlike ... although ... It is not quite clear what part is different from Book 1.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Done

Rabbinic Judaism

• THE BOOK OF WATCHERS IN THE QURÅN has no url. Please add it, and while you are at it, you should also mention what larger work it was taken from. If you cannot access the url above, use this one.

I want to do this tomorrow as I wanted to do earlier, when I am back on my PC (I am currently only using my laptop, with limited options.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sure.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done.

• but also to belittle the angels as a class What do you mean by this?

That they became unimportant in comparation to the status of angels during the second temple period, there angels were often individualized and sometimes venerated.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Then please say so.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)  Done

• Simeon b. Yohai please mention in what period he was living. And while you are at it, do this for all other authors and works in the article which are not from the present time.
• The rabbi Simeon b. Yohai cursed everyone who explained the Sons of God as angels. He states ... Please choose either present or paste tense.
• accuser angels Why do you call them that? You link to destroying angel (Bible).

Accuser angels and destroying angels are (basically) the same, especially in Judaism. They tempt humans into sin, afterthat, they accuse humans in the heavenly court, and finally demand theri destruction. Samael is the head of such angels. On the otherhand, Michael is often seen as the defender of the acts of Israel in the heavenly court. I thought that the name "accuser angel" etter suits the context. Should I change that to "Accuser angel" or rather just unlink them?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What term do secondary sources use?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It literally states: Satans (accusers). I changed that now to "Satans", but kept the link, otherwise it would lead to a "disambiguation page" (Shayatin), because the term is also used with a slighty diferent meaning in Islam.

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Samael refused to worship Adam and objected God favoring Adam over the angels. Thereupon he descends ... Present or paste tense please.

• Thanks for fixing this partly, but tempts is still in present tense.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• fall of Satan in the Cave of Treasures Where is this from? From the Bible or the Quran?

It is neither, it is simply an apocryphon, that might be important during early Chrisitanity. Should this be mentioned you think? I am afraid, if I assign every linked scripture, the article expands too far, for information that can be received by clicking on the linked article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. This is fine.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Kabbalah

• Although not strictly speaking fallen, evil angels, such as Samael, who also appeared in reference to the Enochian fallen angels, reappear in Kabbalah I understand what you mean, but it is a rough read. Please simplify structure of the sentence.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Done
• affirming but simultaneously prohibiting such practices You mean the Zohar affirms and prohibits such practices, right?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a go fixing this myself. I hope you agree with my correction.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Right now, this subsection is part of Rabbinic Judaism. I am uncertain whether Kabbalah is a part of that. If not, this hould not be a subsection of it, but it should be a section of its own, on the same level as Rabbinic Judaism.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

From a scholarly point of view, it is a tradition derived from Rabbinic Judaism. It is somewhat comparable with Sufism; something like esoteric interpretation of the otherwise orthodox strand. It might seems odd, since there reappaer many tradition neglected or even rejected by Rabbinic Judaism, such as the Watcher Story. But Kabbalah is often open minded towards traditions, not rooting in Rabbinic Judaism, such as Neo-Platonism (nevertheless it derives from Rabbinic Jews and advises it's followers to study both the Torah and the Rabbinic literature), thus the syncretism we find here, does not speak against it's Rabbinic teachings. From the Medieval Ages onwards, some Kabbalistic ideas might have influenced Christians, thus resulting in Christian Kabbalah, but this results in Esotericism, just as Modern Gnosticism and has not much in common with their original teachings. The Kabbalah itself, is part of Rabbinic Judaism. A Jewish friend once explained me, that Kabbalah is simply a non-obligatory part of Rabbinic Judaism. Although it is part of (Rabbinic) Judaism, not every Rabbinic Jew must be a Kabbalist.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if that is the historical view, then that's okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Bible

• In Latin-speaking Christianity, the Latin word lucifer, as employed in the late 4th-century AD Vulgate to translate הילל, gave rise to the name "Lucifer" for the person believed to be referred to in the text You mean that the word was interpreted as a person's name? If so, say so.

I rewrote this sentence and added a source. Hope it is fine now :) --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It is simplified. Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is the above sentence, as well as a number of other sentences that follow this sentence, only supported by the primary sources cited, or are they also supported by Packer? You need to support every piece of content that requires interpretation (which in the case of religious texts, is nearly always the case) by secondary sources, not Bible texts or other religious texts. Secondary sources help with interpreting primary sources, and they show that Wikipedia editors like you and me are not cherry-picking quotes to suit an argument we like.

I understand. I now gave a secondary surce, which mentiones the references of fallen angels within the NT (I also added Paul, who appeared there).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Christian tradition has applied to Satan Do you mean: ... has associated Satan with ...?

Rewritten (Ironically, most sentences you object were not written by myself, but I decided to keep)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rabbinic literature saw these two passages as in some ways parallel Shouldn't this be mentioned in the subsection on Rabbinic Judaism?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is somehow inappropriate here. But then, I would remove this entirely, since although it exists, it had no significant impact on Jewish perception on fallen angels. Only in the midrashim of Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer, who adapted many ideas of fallen angels, as already mentioned in the Rabbinic section. I will rewrite this part.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Early Christianity

• Shouldn't this section precede that of the Bible? It also appears that some parts, such as the part on the morning star and the fallen king, are repetitive, so you might also consider merging the section about the Bible with the other sections, since the term Bible is not a clearly defined historical period.

The books, which contains the Bible gave the basis for the main interpretations for that is here referred to as "early Christians" ("Heretic" Christians such as Gnostics are not mentioned here, since they are not in accordance witht he Abrahamic tradition of fallen angels, although they integrated some ideas into their own worldview (Archons for example). Yes, it does not define a period, I thought that the basic writings for the interpretations done by later scholars (who relied on the writings of the Bible, such as Peter, Isaiah, Revelation and so on), should be introduced first, also giving the reader an overview, how the different interpretations were supported. Regarding the "Lucifer"-part. I repeated that for the reason, I wanted to introduce the appeariances of "fallen angels" within the Biblical writings at first, and going into detail in the corresponding section. That is why, I mentioned "Lucifer" twice. Thus, I referred here twice to him, but the purpose changed. As mentioned in the Bible, we have no evidence for that later Christianity identifies him with Satan, that is explained later.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I still think it makes more sense to concentrate on time periods, rather than dedicate a section to Bible. The Bible will be interpreted differently, depending on the time period.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to use this section to introduce the reader into the text, the churches uses/used to justify their interpretation. I am totally on your side, that religious texts change their meanings, partly entirely, depending on the time period. But the Bible gives us the basic from which Christianity derives its ideas. The secondary source I gave, provides the information, how these references were probably understood. Otherwise I would merge the "Early Christianity"-section with the "Bible"-section, and adjust their content. Then we would have something like a "formative-section". But I still see differences between the text, which later becomes the Bible and the interpretations of early Christianity. The references to fallen angels, which are provided by the Bible, are fundamental to every later interpretation of fallen angels, including "Catholicism" and Proto-orthodox Christianity. But since it does not go into detail of Genesis (where we find the Watcher-Story) I would suggest a third solution: We rename it to "In the New Testament" (or something of the like), but then we must remove the paragraph about Book of Ezekiel (that is important, since it shaped the notion of fallen angels in the New Testament).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Mm. Okay, we can leave this for now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• the application of the angelic descent myth accepted the association?  Done
• Why is Origen described as an ascetic, as opposed to the standard description of early church father?

Since he himself devoted (according to the source) his life to spiritual gain and renounced material properties (just comparing to non- Gnostic Chrisitans). Further, he focued on spiritual thoughts within Biblical exegesis. For example, he regarded both demons and angels as merely spirits, who are connected to the mind of people. Thus he also rejected the notion of physical angels mating with humans, giving rise to giants.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever term you are confident is used in secondary sources, you should use that term.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The source I used here refers to Origen by stating "Other monastics and ascetics were more influential through their writings, including Ammonas, Evagrius Ponticus, John Cassian and Origen." Further it states "Notably, the early monastics and ascetics resisted the Watcher Traditions accepted by many Apologists." Here, he differs for example from Justin Martyr.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then. Ascetic it is.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Justin Martyr writes: ... Unsourced and quite unhelpful, as it is abracadabra for the uninitiated. Please remove or find a secondary source that helps interpret.

This surprised me, since, as far as I remember, this one I quoted by myself, and thought it helpfull, since it demonstrates the later depiction of pagan deities as fallen angels/demons. (I want to search for it. Maybe I had them saved on my PC, as I somewhere else stated, I am now on my Laptop.)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but you need secondary sources that help interpret.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)  Done

• The Fall of Lucifer ... Which fall? Which version?

The typical Christian "fall of Lucifer". How many are there? Others, such as "not prostrating himself" are not referred to Lucifer but attributed to Samael, as the article explains somewhere else. I do not udnerstand the point of objection. Could you explain it to me, please?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Do yo mean to say that the motif of the fall of Lucifer in its earliest form can be found in the writings of Origen?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Done

• This description was interpreted typologically as an angel in addition to its literal application to a human king: the image of the fallen morning star or angel was thereby applied to Satan both in Jewish pseudepigrapha[47] and by early Christian writers,[65][66] following the equation of Lucifer to Satan in the pre-Christian century Very complex. Simplify and split up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is a complex sentence since it is more complex in content. I would not know how to make it less complex, without altering the meaning. I could split it and it would repeat itself with Judaism and Christianity.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Try to use more active voice, and break up the argument in steps. The sentence is too much packed with content.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)  Done

The identification ... probably finds its earliest identification Unclear what you mean here. You mean: Origen was the earliest to identify the fall of Lucifer with a fallen angel?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote this sentence, and hope it became more clear now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Catholicism

• Shouldn't this be more accurately titled Western Christianity?

Wouldn't "Western" Christianity also include Protestantism and otehr Christian sects, which are not bound bby Catholic doctrines, but still part of Western Christianity (such as Evangelcalism, Latter Day Saint movement). They do not adhere to the Civitas Dei although stronlgy influenced by it. (I see here, it could be helpfull to write about time periods, entirely and only make seperate sections for different churches, if they appear within the same period, but when I would write it for the whole Christian-section and I would re-read some source, to evaluate whether or not, it is possible, from the sources to give prescious periods)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to Western Christianity before the Reformation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is Western Christianity before reformation and Catholicism after Reformation. Further it is orthodox Christianity without some features only present in Orthodox Christianity. (A, B, C different attributes of a "fallen angel") Like Catholcism before reformation = {A, B}, Catholicism after reformation = {A, B}, Protestantism = {A} Orthodox Christianity = {A, B, C} (and Ethiopic church would be something like {A, D}. That is why, I named it Catholicism at first.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• shifted from superior powers whose?

"Superior powers in this context, was supposed to refer to "supernatural" in general. The theological (or partly even psychological) teaching behind that is, that humans are no longer subject to evil from "outside", but responsible for themselves now. I guess I link this to the corresponding article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So these are the superior powers of angels, of God, or of who? You haven't mentioned whose powers you are talking about.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is about "supernatural forces" in general. It does not matter, whether it is about a deity, an angel, a demon. The significant change is, that it shifted from supernatural (call it superstition if you want) to humans. (it is also what the source says.)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The term is not very clear, since it can also refer to the powers a human might have. What term does the source use?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I will quote the author here: "In short, the responsibility for evil was shifted from superior powers to humans themselves. In line with this, the origin of evil increasingly came to be located at the beginning of human history, in the disobedience and expulsion of the devil and his hosts from heaven on the one hand, and the sin and expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise on the other, rathern than in the voluntary descent of the angels from heaven in the period before the flood." edit: I added "of angels" now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for being a drag about this, but I just don't want leave anything unclear.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• However the Book of Watchers prevailed among Syriac Christians And how does this contradict with the previous sentence? Done
• The earthly city And where is this earthly city?

The earthly city is an abstract concept founded by Augustine. It is something inherent to unbelievers, such as fallen angels, wicked dead and imprudent humans. Later Christian theologicans obviously regarded the earthly city indeed as something more physical. It is briefly explained in the linked article The City of God. I would not go into detail in this article, since it encompass much more than fallen angels and is subject to various interpretations and therefore, would go offtopic.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems it is clear now though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Despite the appearance of dualism, Augustine always emphasized the sovereignty of God Despite implies a contradiction. I am uncertain what dualism and the sovereignty of God have to do with one another.

In a Dualistic Religion, God is commonly not omnipotent, for example in Manichaeism and Zoroastrism. Augustine himself was once a Manichaean. It should emphazise, how Augustine combined monism (one God, govering everything, and being responsible for both good and evil, as we find it in Judaism and Islam), and Dualism (how we find it in Manichchaeism). Should I give a better explanation in the article?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't you add something along the lines of ... the sovereignty of God, normally a characteristic of monist religions? Or how does the source explain this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence. If think it is much clearer now. Also also added a source, I noticed I didn't the last time.

Good. Are there any other parts of the wiki article that are not sourced yet? If so, please source it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems I sourced everything significant now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• However, after they made their decision, they could not turn back. Which decision?  Done
• speaks of "the fall of the angels" not in spatial terms spatial terms?

I wanted to express, that this angels did not "fall" in the meaning of, changing their place as in Cartesian coordinate system. I guess this can be expressed better.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity

• basic principles please add something along the lines of basic principles of Eastern Orthodox Christian doctrine.

I did, but the source itself does simply call them "established principles". It goes into further detail by giving some examples, such as the idea asserted by some "fathers", that angels were created before the material world (that is rather an interpretation, than a dogma). Such interpretations can be done easily in Orthodox Churches, while one can not give the Devil the rank of Prince of Darkness (Manichaeism). Thus I do not know, whether I can elaborate it further without my own interpretations.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, i have tweaked (simplified) it a little.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Protestantism

• Like Catholisicm, Protestantism continues the concept of fallen angels as mere spiritual entities But you previously wrote that only some Catholic scholars believed that, not all scholars.

Where did I stated this? I stated: "In Augustine's view on angels, they cannot be guilty of carnal desires since they lack flesh, but they can be guilty of sins that are rooted in spirit and intellect such as pride and envy." I once wrote "However, these angels received their ethereal body only after their fall.", but these etheral bodies or usually contrasted to flesh in Christianity. A split into whose, who believed angels to be bodily and spiritual, happened during the formation perdiod of Christianity, but not within the Catholic traditions, which is based on the works of Augustine.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Later scholars tried to explain the details of their nature, asserting that the ethereal body is a mixture of fire and air, but that they are still composed of material elements. Others denied any physical relation to material elements, depicting the fallen angels as purely spiritual entities. Under the section Catholicism.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check the source for that exactly I meant here (it is a while ago. Around 4 months). and I do not remember how exactly it was diputed (I remember something about Sucubus, it was rather about special cases, but its good to clear it up)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Edit: I remember: It was about the compostion of theri spiritual nature. Yes, it is confusing here. I guess it needs better explanation.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me explain. The source itselfs refers to the "bodies" as "quasi physical". Accordingly, they have bodies composed of "fire and air", but still not "flesh", while the "only spiritual" entities are neither flesh no ethereal. I will try to make it more clear within the text.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote the Catholic and the Protestant section partly. The issue here is, the definition of "spiritual" over time. While in Antiquity, spirits were thought of as composed of "thin matter", such as "air and fire" (a notion continued in later Arab-traditions), in later Western traditions, the spiritual nature itself became subject for debate, whether or not it has any relation to matter. I hope my edits shed light into this subject.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Interesting.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Paradise Lost

• Angels, both obedient and fallen, play an important role in the 17th-century epic poem Paradise Lost Please mention from the start that this was written by Milton. Done
• Nevertheless, hell turns into a place of suffering by their own establishment Please expand and explain a bit more, it's cryptic.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

expanded, hope it is more clear now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Islam

• Templates like {{cite Quran}} cannot be used in a GA article. You can only refer in the body of a text to a Quran surah or Bible text through Wikisource. In Wikisource you should find all Quran and Bible sources. But in fact, you are not obliged to cite the Bible or Quran texts you are referring to.

I guess I will simply give the passage in brackets.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this rule does not only apply to the {{cite quran}} template, but to all external links within the body of the text (as opposed to the reference list, in which they are allowed). So the {{bibleverse}} and {{bibleref}} templates needs to go as well, or you can replace it them with Wikisource links.

• Nahj al-Balagha, an Islamiccollection of sermons This is primary source information and should be backed by secondary sources to prove relevance and give context.

Consulting Google Books and GoogleScholars, I could not find this text in a broader context used in secondary literature. Thus it seems to be not worthy to be noticed and I remove it. Even without the reference to the sermons, it gives several notions of traditions impliying the fall of an angel.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• hadith links to tradition, which doesn't really help. If you want to gloss hadith, then simply put the English gloss in brackets next to the word. Done

Iblis

• Please use historical present tense ("Allah says ...") rather than past tense. You do this now and then, but not consistently.

I would keep the past-tense in "stating he was only allowed to join the company of angels as a reward for his previous righteousness", since the past-tense here is an essential part of this figure (Iblis). I fixed other mistakes.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Please fix the instances in other sections as well. E.g. on Earth, these angels entertained and acted upon sexual desires and were guilty of idol worship in the section Harut and Marut.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)  Done

Thanks for fixing that. There are lots more, in nearly all the sections 1 Enoch until Protestantism.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I made some edits now. Hope I have not overseen something.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• When referring to God or Heaven, please don't use capital letters, unless in quotes. It's not encyclopedic tone.

Concerning teh references to "God", as far as I know, Wikipedia wants us to captilize it, when referring to the Judeo-Christian God. Since Islam-Wiki-Project wants us to translate "Allah" into it's Judeo-Christian equivalent, I guess it must stay captilized. Otherwise, we shall also captilize "Allah". I guess it is because it is thought of as a proper name. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents)

I apologize for my lack of clarity: I meant He and Him with capitals. Capitals are not required in these cases—they are required in the case of God and Allah, of course. Sorry.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As far I did not oversee something, I have it done, now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• stating his numbering among the angels was just a reward for his previous righteousness. Please simplify sentence. Done
• some scholars argue that Iblis was actually not an angel If these are scholars from the Meccan period you refer to earlier, use past tense. If they are present-day scholars, use present tense. Now you use both. Done
• Therefore, this verse could not exclude Iblis from being an angel. Which verse? Above you refer to two verses. Done
• and thereupon he banished from heaven You mean, Satan is banished by God from heaven? Done

Harut and Marut

This subsection is okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Broadness check

Before I do a second reading and wrap up, I am checking whether the article covered all the content available. I did a search and found this:

• This article by Suter concludes that the fallen angel is about the origin of evil, and that [e]vil is the result of the willful departure of the creature from his assigned place in the divine order. Such conclusions about the motifs and myths of the fallen angel are not much covered yet in the wiki article here. You cover the historical developments extensively, but you should consider a separate section with some conclusions about the motifs in fallen angel narratives. Bamberger also writes about this. You list Bamberger in the reference list, but do not cite him.

I did not find much conclusions in Barmbergers book (apart from 2 Enoch, that it "is also about humans ignorance" without further explaining it). Nevertheless I would add Suters conclusion, but not in a sperate section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC) edit: Since it is something very basic, I think this can be added right into the lead, but I did not find the exact quote. So before adding it I would like to read the context.

VenusFeuerFalle, I haven't found this part yet. Please add it, and I can continue by reviewing the lead. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I found it now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I briefly mention this now. If you want to check it again, it is on page 132 (or 18)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• The same article by Suter also mentions historical interpretations of fallen angel motifs. Suter believes that attitudes towards priests may have been at the foundation of the arising of the fallen angel mythology. he also mentions tension between priests and scribes.

I'm still thinking about where to place it. I don't think a "conclusion" deserves its own section, but I rather want to add it into the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I added the source by Suter now, but before I am going to add further conclusions, I would like to look up something, that is related but I did not add since I thought such interpretations would be too vague.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I added further content, I originally decided to waive, because I thought it is too speculative. But after adding the reference of Suter, I changed my mind.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It is speculative, but the article is widely cited by scholars (127 cites on Google Scholar), which makes it notable speculation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The book by Bamberger, chapter 1, mentions a number of examples of fallen angel motifs in popular literature. Though you have covered the most important one, Milton, you should mention that there are other references in popular literature.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually wanted to create a "popular section", but withdrew, because most references available in secundar litereture are rather short (apart from Paradise Lost, why I only added this one). I added the poems of Vigny mentioned in Bambergers first chapter. Although one of the poems mentioned there, is rather about Nephilim than about fallen angels per se, I took it into account. I originally wanted to include even fallen angels from popular culture, but did not find many sources. Most of them simply referred either to demons or to Satan, implying that (due to the Christian background), they are fallen angels although there is often no significant characteristic of a fallen angel. I only found "The Mythology of Supernatural: The Signs and Symbols Behind the Popular TV Show", there demons and fallen angels are distinct creatures. But I thought it is biased to rfer to only one modern representation of fallen angels, so I did not used it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Well, you fixed it now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have read through your added content and I think it is a good addition. Your sources are excellent. I have a few questions though:

• You write as though Suter talks about how the text is interpreted, but my understanding is he rather talks about what helped make a certain motif popular.

I added something about this, now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• You don't mention the historical context, such as the historical period and places Suter mentions.

I added the 3 BC, do you think that is enough?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• What do you mean by According to a paradigmatical interpretation?

I will try to fix this together with the other points you mentioned--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Suter just mentions "Paradigmatic" interpretation in contrast to the etiological, I would like to keep this words. I myself do not really see, why are contrasted here, to be honest, but I see that Suter used both words this way several times in this article. I linked "paradigmatic" to the correspnding article on Wikipedia for better understanding for the readers.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• What do you mean by Strikely? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/striking+fact the Adjective of striking. But as I saw, I mispelled it. I am sorry.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• They mark a transition: While in previous circles, the sinners are condemned for sins they just could not resist, henceforth the circles of hell are filled with sinners, who deliberately rebelled against God. So where between is the transition?

I am not sure, that you mean exactly. I think the transition is pointed out by "While in previous circles, the sinners are condemned for sins they just could not resist, henceforth the circles of hell are filled with sinners, who deliberately rebelled against God.". I now added, that we now deal with fallen angels and heretics, not only with common sinners. Maybe this amkes the transtion more clear?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Second reading

Sorry for the delay. Here i begin the second reading. I am moving the subsection about the lead here, since this was still in progress.

Lead

• Hasan of Basra not only emphasized verses Briefly state who this is. Done
• Other scholars, such as Al-Baydawi and Mahmud al-Alusi, Which time period(s)? Done

• However, their affirmation was also opposed by Islamic scholars By 14th-, 17th- or 21st-century Islamic scholars? What is the time period?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Sources usually do not give a precise date. It varies depending on the personal view of the exegete. Only significant is, that in modern times, the notion of fallen angels became more and more opposed.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Some non-Islamic scholars Is this term commonly used in scholarship? Doing...

(Not sure whether or not, this is the right section to answer, if not, please simply advise me, where to respond instead)::I started to edit the lead:

It is your right to respond wherever you want. But I have moved it into the section about the lead, since that is what you are talking about.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hasan of Basra not only emphasized verses I rewrote this section and provided a more detailed description. But I would not go too much into detail, since, as pointed out by academics, many reports attributed to early Muslims, are often biased to suit ones own opinion.

Yes, taht is true. Especially than it is about Hasa of Basra. I even read once, that he called the "jinn" were actually highranked angels, but since most and even source, which focus on Hasan Basri state that he opposed the notion of fallen angels, I was certain to mention him. At least, he is a turning point from which Muslim scholars used to justify the opposition of fallen angels, regardless that he really sayed.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• However, their affirmation was also opposed by Islamic scholars; Other scholars, such as Al-Baydawi and Mahmud al-Alusi, rewritte, I think it is better to understand the point now. (also using anotehr sourcce, but as far as I see, it is reliable. Also adding the time-periode for Baydawi and Alusi. Unfortunetaly we do not ahve a birthdate for Baydawi.

Nice work! I will get back to the lead later, at the end of the review. For more info, see WP:LEAD.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some non-Islamic scholars It seems to be used, I read it sometimes. Otherwise we could use the term academic scholarship, but I am not sure, whether or not, this sounds offensive. See also here: Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic)

• I would say secular scholars sounds more professional and neutral.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't used the term, since it could erroneously assert, that it is referring to "Secular Muslim scholars" (such as Modernist Salafis or "Liberal Muslims"), that is not the case.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever term you are confident is used in secondary sources, you should use that term. Don't take other Wiki articles as an example, though. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I used "Academic" now. I guess this makes the differences clear and is not ambig. WOuld you agree?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It will suffice, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I further removed the last sentence, you also objected, due to the writing style. I guess the fact, that Islam, unlike Christianity, has no established Angel-doctrine ad different opinnions from different scholars are presented, this sentence is self-explanatory.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, which last sentence again?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It was about "there is not satisfying explanation how angels in Islam, fell from heaven, or how they could fall from heaven." or something like that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's up to you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure about the following points:

• Controversial points in the lead: I first thought this could give a short introduction how fallen angels are (and sometimes were) disputed in Islam. But if this is too controversial, we could swap the paragraph in the lead with the first paragraph of the Islam-section?

• No, controversial or disputed topics should also be covered in the lead. I just meant to say that normally you don't need to cite anything in the lead, as it is meant to be a summary of the body of the text. Exception to this is controversial information, that might be challenged if left without citations in the lead. I hope I have clarified this now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I get your point. But as I understood, we will come back to it later. Doesn't seem to be something that would be hard to change.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I shortened the lead now. I kept much citation especially in the islam part, since in contemporary scholarship, the whole idea of "fallen angel" is a controversial one especially for Muslim readers.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of the above points I will get to later. First of all, I'd like you to trim the lead a bit. The current lead is a little too large, per WP:LEAD.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to ping.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Everytime I read this article again, I wondered whether or not, it might be too long. Yes, I will try to shorten it and focus more on the keypoints rather than providing too much details.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is the right size, and could be expanded even. But the lead is a bit out of proportion is all.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually meant the lead. But I guess I will not do the edit (of the lead) tonight, but today.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with the lead:

• There are now a few broken references in the reference list. You should see the error messages. This probably happened when you trimmed the lead, and you should recover them using a previous version of the page.

This can be done easily--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Still one left at Fallen_angel#cite_note-Patricia_Crone_page_5-76.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

How could I oversee this?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When you overly see.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• The content of the lead still differs in some points from the body of the text. Please don't forget that the lead is just a summary of the article, and should not contain unique content (unless very basic, like a gloss or definition of the subject). There are also too many citations in the lead, which should just be in the body of the text, except for a few controversial lines.

I am not sure, which statements you mean. As far as I see, everything that is mentioned here, except the definition, and some parts in the Islam section, is also within the article. Regarding the Islam section Evidence for the motif of fallen angels can be traced back to reports attributed to some of the companions of Muhammad, such as Ibn Abbas (619-687) and Abdullah ibn Masud (594-653). appears both in the Iblis and in the Harut and Marut section. Iblis as a jinn. is also covered. I only do not go into detail concerning the diferent readings on Harut and Marut, since I didn't waned to go into too much detail about that fallen angels are not. As far as I know, it is accepted that the lead-section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Scope_of_article) deals with, that it is not. That it is longer than just one short note, is because I regard it as necessary to explain the issue. I would not like to discuss extensively why and why not, there are fallen angels or not, and how they could be interpretated otherwise. For that, we have corresponding articles (the main articles for Harut and Marut and Iblis to discuss it). Likewise I would not go into further detail to describe Scholars who accept fallen angels estimated the degree of fallibility of angels. According to a common assertion, only the messengers among angels are impeccable., since even scholars do not have a much more detailed explanation. The given exmaple afterwarts is one of the view general provided by academic sources. Anything else would be too detailed, and since it does not give rise to any further notable ideas, I would not mention such details within the main-section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That is all correct, but there appear to be a few lines new in the lead, e.g. Basra is not mentioned in the body of the article, or is he? If he is, how do you call him there?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Christianity attributed the sin of fallen angels before the beginning of human's history Unusual expression, please simplify. Attributing is generally used for people, not for periods.

What would you suggest instead? Ascribing? Sounds strange to me. As far as I remember Crone (the author) aso used "attributed".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I would just say that "Christian doctrine states that the sins of fallen angels start before the beginning of human's history". Or do you mean, the sins of humans?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess I will take this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Although sometimes denied seems redundant to me, can it be cut out?

It was important enough to be mentioned by Alford T. Welch, then he wrote about fallen angels in Islam. Since in modern times, Muslims often act like they never existed in their religion.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As most of the other issues in the article, this is a language issue, not a content issue: If you say Although sometimes denied, you refer to the same scholars that accepted the existence. You should write Although denied by some scholars to indicate that you refer to a different group of scholars in the first phrase.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Secondly, if you are referring to classical Islam scholars or Quran scholars, you should say so. Classical scholars is ambiguous.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote Classical Islma scholars now. The over I thought would be kind of self-explanatory. But yes, one should not assume this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Scholars who accept fallen angels estimated the degree of fallibility of angels. Vague, please rephrase.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

See above. Otherwise I would remove it and just explain in short, how some scholars refused the concept of fallen angels.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to let this one go. If I can follow, others can also. It is probably okay for GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, otherwise it gets really really confusing and the article would become less readable.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Temple period

• There's one last external link that should be removed or replaced by a wikisource.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• This motif, found in 1 Enoch, is unique in later Jewish and Christian theology. But this section is about early Jewish religious scripture. What is its relevance? And how is it unique in later theology, when similar motifs are already mentioned in early Jewish scripture? You just mentioned that Azazel is blamed for the corruption of earth.

Thanks for expanding on this, but do you not mean that the motif is different from later Jewish and Christian theology?.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... The source, as far as I remember, called it explicitly "unique". "Unique" is the motif that evil comes from without not from within, not the imagery of a fallen angel.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But below you say that Christian and Jewish theologians in later times started to teach that evil comes from within, from humans, not angels:

Evil was no longer attributed to heavenly forces, now it was dealt as an "evil inclination" (yetzer hara) within humans.

Not sure, if I got your point right. In 1 Enoch it is from without, angels, who introduce sin, hile in Judaism/Christianity, it is free-will. I made

In Augustine works, evil originates from free will--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, if I got your point right. In 1 Enoch it is from without, angels, who introduce sin, hile in Judaism/Christianity, it is free-will. I made an edit--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's helpful, but the issue is not fully clarified yet. You write evil is attributed to something supernatural from without and then you continue that This motif ... is unique in later Jewish and Christian theology. This implies that Jewish and Christian theology states that evil comes outside. That doesn't appear to be your intention. What do you mean by unique?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• the 2nd heaven; In the 5th heaven Can this be wikilinked to some page?

No, we only have an article for the Third Heaven (for whatever reason).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, lol. Though not required for GA, you could redlink the term.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will do. Maybe, the will have articles on their own someday.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• the text refers to the leader of the Grigori as Satanail and not as Azael or Shemyaza. I can't follow. Why is this relevant again?

Because that not Azazel but an angel called Satanail (named after the accuser in earlier Jewish texts) is unique to the Enoch traditions.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Rabbinic Judaism

• was degraded to a class of creatures creature is just another word for living being. What do you mean exactly? Do you mean degraded to a class of creatures on the same level of humans?
• which derive from the Qliphoth Please briefly define inline to improve readability.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Christianity

• According to the Church Fathers who accepted this doctrine Do you mean Origen's interpretation?
• The identification, based on an interpretation of Isaiah 14:1–17, which describes a king of Babylon as the fallen "morning star" (in Hebrew, הילל‎), was probably the first time identified with a fallen angel by Origen. What exactly is identified with the fallen angel?
• the Book of Watchers ... prevailed You mean, the book was of great influence in their society?

I rewrote it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Some theologians even suggest Modern theologians?

This can not be determined, since such opinions are rather individual initerpretations not based on canonical doctrines neither promoted, that we could identify from where such opinions derived.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But they are theologians from recent centuries, right?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the source, in Orthodox Christianity, there was always a tend among priests, to believe that everyone will be restored, although it was never an official doctrine. They claim to derive their teachings from Origen. It is not something modern, neither is it something old. Since it was never official announed, we can not determine, who sayed it first.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add something along the lines of "historically" or "since medieval times" so that the reader understands you are not referring to modern-day scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the following now: "Historically, some theologians even tend to suggest that fallen angels could be rehabilitated in the world to come."

• The section popular culture has become too broad now to put it under "Christianity". You should put it at the end of the article.

It is based on the Christian cuture and Christian ideas of fallen angels. There is no mention of fallen angels in Islamic culture (such as Harut and Marut, fallen angels and jinn or something of the like). But I am fine with it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This section is about works influenced by Christianity, but they are not strictly speaking Christian works.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam

• The note containing the text The Meaning And Explanation Of The Glorious Qur'an: 1-203 Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman "The Story of Harut and Marut, and the Explanation That They Were Angels God said is unclear. I'm not sure what this note means.

I guess it is something redundant (from another author). Since I knew the statement here is true, I didn't objected the note nor the source. I would simply remove it, since it is also covered by the other source I gave here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• In this section, you use God instead of Allah. Is this supported by Wikipedia guidelines on articles on Islam?

We should always refer to God instead of to Allah. exceptions are quotes, only.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In which guideline or policy can this be found?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It was here: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles"

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• How are jinn and jinni different?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a difficult question, even Islam scholars (obviously) fail to explain sometimes. The jinn is usually a type of invisible creature (a "demon" or "beast" or "Genii" or something of the like). The jinni on the other hand is only a word, and the result of grammatical rules. Somebody, who comes from somewhere is named after the place but a "i" is added. Now, Jannah/Jinnah (Paradise or Heaven) has the same word root than "jinn", thus we have a person, who came from jinna, to call "jinni". But apart from the linguistical similarity, they are entirely different things. I rewrote the part.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

• Which items in "See also" do you mean?

• Those which are redundant with the wikilinks in the body of the text. But never mind—you already fixed it now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(I am now going for the intertestamental section) --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think many references including links to Google-Sources and not-working links can be removed. Most of them (or even all) remained before I prepared this article for GA and I did not removed them, because I thought they would include, if not necessary, but at least "interesting" information. But for example "Universalism" is can be easily removed. The fact that this idea appears among some Christians is aleady mentioned within their corresponding section.

Good. Agreed. That was only sourced by primary sources anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, for your efforts. There is much more to do. TThe next days, I write some exams. I would like to procceed here on Wednesday or Thursday. These are all minor edits, I think I can do quick, but I need to focus.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, take your time, do your exams first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The main concern which I still have at this point is that you refer to primary sources often, such as religious texts. This is advised against in Wikipedia policies. Primary sources should not be used as your main source of information in any religious context, because such content is always subject to interpretation and therefore cherry-picking. We need secondary sources instead. You have used many academic sources in the article, so it is obvious you don't object to them, but in the article here there are still some paragraphs that only refer to primary sources without any secondary sources to help interpret those primary source passages. This should be fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Now I only directly quote in Books of Jubilee and 1 Enoch, in both cases, I refer to them in the following, cited. But if you wish, I can remove the quote of Mastema (but I thought it would support the expression made before).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Sorry for the wait. I have been on a retreat, and then fell ill because of a jet lag.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have now reviewed the section on Catholicism, and the remaining issues in the others sections are underlined.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ping, ping, ping ...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, I will have a look at this now. Yes I was ill as well, for the last three days.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Take good care! We still have a while to go. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. tkae good care, too. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll make it! We'll make it!

Above, you will find my last comments for the first reading, and please note I underlined remaining comments in earlier sections. You can also check in the contents which sections are not crossed off the list yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Venus, your corrections look good. I will take a look at them tomorrow. Above I have clarified the misunderstanding—my mistake—with regard to capitals in God and Allah.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

I have underlined the remaining issues, which are not many. Please look at my pointers for some aspects that should be expanded in the article, in the broadness check above. If all of that is fixed, I will do a second reading of the lead and body of the text, and we can wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I finished the second reading now, and have listed some minor concerns above. As for the lead, it is quite detailed and should just be a brief summary of the body of the article. Some parts are also not found in the body of the article. Except for very basic information like definitions and synonyms, the lead shouldn't contain any new information, but just summarize the article. There also appear to be some parts unsourced.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your edits here, I would like to make my edits at the latest tomorrow or even night today.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Okeedokee! Keep me posted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping, ping. See above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I added Hasa of Basri now in the Islam section briefly. I would not go into much more detail. Also rewrote the "unique" part.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle, please fix the final minor issues, thanks. They're underlined, in the sections about the lead and Christianity.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed the remaining issues.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well-done. Could you remove the redundant citations from the lead? Then we're done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: There are six citations remaining (citation nr. 2 to 7) that cannot be found in the body of the text. Though I believe you when you say that the content can be found in the body, you should check whether the sources in the lead say the same thing as the sources in the body, and if they do, remove these redundant citation numbers. This is all WP:LEAD, GA review basics.

The citations in the lead paragraph about Islam may indeed point to controversial content, so you can keep those.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Done

Thanks. The article has much improved now because of your persistence. I am sorry for the length of the review, but I just don't want someone to delist the article later. I am passing the article for GA now. If you have time, please also review an article of mine at WP:GAN#REL. And let me know if you when you do a DYK.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.