Talk:Metatron

Reverted claim about Jesus

An edit on August 23, 2019 inserted the following line: “Jesus is the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days is his Almighty Father.” It inserted this immediately in front of a pre-existing citation This citation (on page 152) actually says that there is evidence that some Christians depicted Jesus as “The Ancient of Days” from Daniel. That is not what the Jewish and Islamic traditions being discussed in this context believe at all. The sentence, perhaps unintentionally, departs from a NPoV and declares a different religious belief correct. I therefore removed this sentence.

If there is a Christian tradition about Metatron, it would be relevant to discuss Christian beliefs in that context, and to attribute them to a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6025:63:21e8:c6f2:5599:a149 (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The "In Popular Culture" section is way too long.

Is it really necessary, for example, to summarize the entire plot of "Dogma," in which Metatron has only a few minutes of screen time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.33.51 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC) I agree. That shit is embarrassing and so unencyclopedic. There doesn't need to be two big paragraphs about the fucking connection to Supernatural. I don't know how a grown-up can read through this article without rolling their eyes and realizing the problem. 75.129.50.183 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are right, most of the popular culture section does not compile with the Wikipedia guidlines for popular culture WP:POPCULTURE. Often anonymous users add all references to a certain topic found somewhere in popular culture and add extensive stories about them, often without any source, or signs of significance. It is not that someones reads it and thinks "oh pretty good", rather, one disregards it, especially since it is at the bottom of the article, like "well, it is bad but it is probably not too bad". Here, after I looked at it, it obviously is. Similar problems we find in other articles abouut angels and demons, such as Asmodeus and IFrit. In the Ifrit article it stopped, since it became a GA article. The Asmodeus article is frequently trimed but not set on high standarts yet. This article however, has an espeially bad pop-culture section, I will look up today. Thanks for pointing it out.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look and weed what I can't find a decent cite for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the information in this section are reliably sourced. The whole section should be removed. Veverve (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article is an angel. A divine being from the Judaic and later the Islamic traditions. As such (for an encyclopaedia not bound to any particular faith) Metatron is analytically-speaking nothing but 'popular culture'. A being from mythology, who's continued mythic presence is sustained by the cultures and faiths that mythologise him. Wikipedia, per usual, misapplies the term to mean something else entirely. I'm not normally a great fan of the phrase 'cultural appropriation', but I'd have to suggest that it might be more accurate here. Other people's Angels, decontextualised and reduced to little more than a convenient name for some random plot device. I'll leave it to those who believe in such beings to decide whether they consider it offensive or not, but as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia should not be representing facile and gratuitous trivialisation as reflecting the true presence of such beings in 'popular culture'. It is completely and utterly wrong-headed. It is absurd. It is, along with almost all 'popular culture' sections in articles, a relic from a time when some random contributor first misused a term from the social sciences to shoehorn something they'd seen in an episode of the Simpsons into an article on theology or nuclear physics. Primary-sourced junk that per usual tells the reader nothing at all about the actual article subject, and everything about the narrow obsessions of contributors who add it. Delete it. Burn it with fire. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would also support the entire removal of the section. Veverve (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll copypaste a comment I made in 2019 on the talkpage of another divinity:

"Someone (not me, this time) added this section awhile back, and such sections can become problematic, causing instinctive dislike in many Wikipedians. As one editor put it, "Realistically, sections like this are like cancer. If you leave a little it just encourages everybody to put their favorite little factoid in it and it metastasizes. It is better to remove the cancer in its entirety. Otherwise you just simply have to live with a giant list of trivia that dwarfs the rest of the article." A couple of thoughts.

Items included should be well sourced, the more scholarly the better (such sources may well exist, surprisingly often I find). Just existing is not enough, remember WP:PROPORTION. If there is enough good sources, consider a separate article.

It doesn't have to be "In popular culture" only, consider examples like Cain_and_Abel#Cultural_portrayals_and_references and Moses#Cultural_portrayals_and_references.

Related discussions can be seen at [24] and [25]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

In summary, if there are decent sources, I think pretty much any subject WP-article can have a decent pop cult-ish section, from Parasitism#Cultural_significance to Otto_Skorzeny#In_fiction and United Nations in popular culture (the last one I actually nominated for deletion, successfully, but it rose from the deleted in a much improved shape). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the section looks OK now — not great, but respectable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It still is terrible: all it is, is a list of "X appears in Y". This is not encyclopedic, and it should be entirely removed as per MOS:TRIVIA. Veverve (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's cited and includes academic analysis for the Pynchon item. I think it should stay. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources provided did not discuss the subject at length, as required by MOS:POPCULT. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

agree with Xoreaster that the section is now of reasonable length, the Info is cited and somewhat interesting, and there doesn't seem consensus here to remove it entirely so I've reverted that action.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• tor.com, themarysue.com, readysteadycut.com, and marqueemag.com, are random websites, not RSs
• MOS:POPCULT states: "A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item"; none of the refs I could check qualified as such, it is "this RS mentions the subject is in this media, let's add it!". Also, "prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears".

Veverve (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about readysteadycut.com and marqueemag.com, but the Tor and Mary Sue websites are good enough for modern print fiction and TV media. The latter is explicitly greenlit at WP:RSP. I agree that the section would work better in prose than as a list; fortunately, in this case it would be easy to reorganize (e.g., by medium).

Metatron in Dogma (1999) was a major character played by no less than Alan Rickman [1]; the Metatron in His Dark Materials is the ultimate antagonist of a successful novel series and its TV adaptation. I'm happy to see incidental appearances on the level of "this song mentioned Metatron" or "look, there is a Metatron poster on a wall in a videogame" get removed. Cutting everything goes too far and makes, I think, for a less informative article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok for those two websites' reliability.

Again, none of the sources, whatever their reliability may be, "cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth". Despite the fact "it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item", this is exactly the case here. Passing mentions in sources do not meet the criteria laid out at MOS:POPCULT to add information of the "in popular culture" type. Thus, the whole section can and should be removed. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

They do more than what I'd call mere mentions, particularly the scholarly references for the Pynchon item (which might be the most brief appearance but which has attracted the most in-depth analysis). MOS:POPCULT says, This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it still gives recommendations. And if one can add with your criterion, then we are back with the dumping of random facts a la "X appears in song by Y", "X appears in comics Z", etc., that the community from what I see does not accept anymore. Another user described those sections as a "crap magnet" and I agree. And the way you have described you filter (or rather, lack thereof) for the addition of such information is calling for having sections like this. Veverve (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support a standard of requiring multiple independent RS for each item and demonstrable significance of each work being talked about (individual songs seldom warrant articles, for example, whereas nobody doubts the notability of Gravity's Rainbow). That's far from lacking a filter at all, is more than enough to avoid the cruft that xkcd satirized 15 years ago, and is in line with the standards I've seen applied in the sections that have survived trivia cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) MOS:POPCULT is an essay. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is policy: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. The 'appropriate weight' of random contemporary popcult appropriations has to be more or less zero, when discussing cultural elements dating back many centuries, and if there is actual independent analysis of e.g. a particular movie sufficient to consider inclusion, it needs to be justified on its own, not as part of a ragbag collection of trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That some cultural elements dating back centuries upon centuries get incorporated into contemporary media while others don't is an interesting phenomenon. I think it's a net positive if we say something about such things when the available references permit. Personally, I think nuking the section in its earlier form was justifiable, and either leaving it out or including a cited and more selective version would be preferable to what it was. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Who says it is an 'interesting phenomenon'? Where are the sources discussing this 'phenomenon' in relation to Metatron? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that (XOR'easter). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The "Chilling Adventures" and "Mars Volta" items are not well verified. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT is an essay: it says on top "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style" and is "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Am I missing something? It is possible you confused it with the essay WP:POPCULTURE. Veverve (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be correct, I'd confused the two. Either way, like I said, WP:NOTEVERYTHING is definitely policy. As indeed is WP:DUE, which is really what is at issue here. Our article on Fish say doesn't include every piscine presence in the mass media, that would be absurd. So why do we apply a different standard when discussing Judaic/Islamic angels, and their presence in manga or whatever? Who decides these 'popcult' appearances are significant, and thus WP:DUE for inclusion? Wikipedia contributors apparently, since nobody actually writing about Metatron as a subject seems to consider it worth writing about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I support the complete removal of the section.

If there is something encyclopedic to say about a subject's apparition in a posterior media, then it will usually have plenty of in-depth academic sources analysing the phenomenon, and those analysis will be worth their own paragraphs or even their own section in the WP article. Having mentions in a bullet list of trivial anecdotes of "X appears at Y", supported by sources that barely mention the topic, that is not encyclopedic. "In popular culture" sections are crap magnets, as I said. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"a subject's apparition in a posterior media" Are you using "apparition" as a synonym forapparitional experience? Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you using "apparition" as a synonym forapparitional experience: no, I meant to say "appearance", my bad. Veverve (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"My name is in him"

Wouldn't the obvious interpretation about the angel of which God says "my name is in him" be Micha-EL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.207.16 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• We don't interpret (WP:No original research), we publish what reliable sources say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

How many reverts is someone allowed before there is a violation of your rules? I thought it was only three. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If people are involved in a content dispute, it is advisable to discuss the disputed content on the talk page, rather than asking about edit-warring rules. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Three reverts in 24 hours (WP:3RR). Also, please discuss your changes before trying to add your changes once again, per WP:BRD. Veverve (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the material being linked appears to include substantial excerpts from a book published in 2005 and thus likely to be subject to copyright. Per policy, we cannot link to copyright-violating material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• PPP, Veverve is incorrect. A violation of 3RR requires 4 reverts in 24 hours. That said, you can be sanctioned for edit-warring with fewer than 4 reverts. It depends on the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And say what to the editor who reverts your edits without offering the same courtesy? Well, I have believed they were useful links since Enochmetatron added them, and no one has thought to question their contribution to the article until now, over 15 years later. Your argument against them meeting the standards for external links is patently not true, nor is your claim of a copyright issue. If we were to remove all reference links to copyrighted works, there would be little left of many articles. These extracts are being referenced in the same way as the other links to copyrighted works throughout this article and Wikipedia as a whole. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we link copyright works all the time. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the links aren't to the copyright work - they are to webpages that seem to be hosting substantive portions of a work in breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What an astonishing coincidence that you should realise at this precise moment, after it being right under your nose for the last 15 years or more, and yet how more wrong could you possibly be, if that material, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, was uploaded by its author, Andrei Orlov, for public consumption, to webpages at Marquette University where said author happens to be an associate professor, Orlov's Website, Faculty Profile, Orlov's CV. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It may have been under someone's nose for fifteen years, but it certainly wasn't under mine. I'd not looked at the article at all until it came up under discussion elsewhere quite recently, and I only looked at the links when I saw two people in dispute over them. At which point, I pointed out what appeared, from the evidence available on the pages linked, to be a possible copyright issue here: "Unless I'm missing something". So yes, I'd missed something. Something you presumably could have simply pointed out without the sarcasm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:EL states:

• "Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable."
• "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links"

Your huge list of links is not acceptable, nor is putting secondary sources as an external link. This is why I oppose. Veverve (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The links had been undisturbed for over 15 years, it is neither a long nor huge list, and they are not mine.
You are clearly trying to mislead others by removing sentences from context

• "Links to be considered

3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure..."

then deliberately omitting the last word in the sentence

• "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique ..."

Your use of exaggeration and deceit is not acceptable. Plus I am opposed to their removal. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject": yes, and this is not an official page ("a link") about the subject, but multiple links to a book. A secondary source is not an official page. Could you AGF and not belittle me? Veverve (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not saying generally avoid providing external links, it is saying with one given exception, "... one should generally avoid providing external links to: 1, 2, 3 etc". PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not saying generally avoid providing external links: yes, external links can be put in those sections if they qualify as acceptable.

The problem is twofold: 1) what you want to add is MOS:FURTHER material, 2) adding a multiple-links version of something in 'External links' or in 'Further reading' is forbidden ("Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links"); this is not your fault bur Orlov's for splitting their work into multiple extracts.

I will add Orlov's book as FR without the links, as an attempt at reaching an agreement. Veverve (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)