Talk:Gabriel/Archive 2

RfC 1 of 2: Are the following references that provide support for Gabriel's Sex/Gender variance considered reliable sources in this context?

Are the following references that provide support for Gabriel's Sex/Gender variance considered reliable sources in this context? Please comment under each of the references below with supporting or opposing thoughts, or with any comments/suggestions you might have. Your input is extremely appreciated. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

References Supporting Gabriel's Sex/Gender Variance

Below is a list of several sources which seem to support the idea that Gabriel could be male, female, or androgynous.

• Ahlquist, Diane (2007-07-03). "5, Send Me an Angel". The Complete Idiot's Guide to Life After Death (1st ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. pp. 49–57. ASIN 1592576516. ISBN 978-1-592576-51-7. LCCN 2006920582. OCLC 145175815. Retrieved 2013-10-09. Angel of Peace. Just as there is an angel of death, we also hear about the angel of peace, especially in Judeo-Christianity. This angel is considered non-judgmental and balanced, existing in harmony of all things. She surrounds herself on equal ground in all things. The reason this particular angel has been classified as feminine may be because the qualities of this entity relate more to the feminine or gentler side of our psyche. And she has a very important role in bringing balance to our lives. For example, when something doesn't go the way you want it to in your life, you will see that this angel has taken what you thought of as a negative and made it into a positive. It's also said the angel of peace can guide us to the next dimension after our death. Who would be a better angelic pilot to take us over to the other side than someone who has unconditional love for all? You may be thinking, "I though that was the angel of death's job! So who does take us to the next life?" That may be determined by your religious and spiritual beliefs, and of course, we'll never know until the moment arrives. (p. 51). Are Angels Male or Female? Sometimes we think of angels as being men and sometimes we think of them as being women. For example, the archangel Michael is always portrayed as being male. However, it's also been said that angels are androgynous, meaning they're neither male nor female. It seems it is all in the vision of the beholder. The Bible and other religious texts don't uphold the fact that angels can be of either gender. They may refer to angels on occasion as male, but that's mostly for reading purposes more than anything, and typically even in present times we tend to use the masculine language to make our points. Regardless, it should be noted that most of the angels' names we are familiar with end in the letters "el": Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and so on. This is taken from the Hebrew root word meaning "of God." These names are all considered masculine; another reason people may assume all angels are male. I subscribe to the notion that angels are without gender. If angels do not bear children, why would they be created with genders? It's just not necessary. (p. 53). {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_chapter= and |chapterurl= (help)

• This source asserts that angels are asexual. Elizium23 (talk)

• Where does this source allegedly assert that Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual? I do not recall this source explicitly stating that Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual. Please provide page numbers. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Updated source with page numbers and quotations as of 12/7.
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Archangel Gabriel: Representation of a Female or Androgynous Gabriel". AngelGabriel.blogspot.com. 2007-09-19. Retrieved 2010-08-16.

• A clearly unreliable blog. Elizium23 (talk)

• Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Aquinas, Thomas (c. 1265-1274). "Question 51. Angels and Bodies." . Summa Theologiae, Treatise on the Angels (Internet). Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. – via Wikisource. {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |year= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

• No evidence that Aquinas advocated any particular sex of angels from his own writings. Elizium23 (talk)

• Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Making necessary assumptions as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blasone, Pino (2008-07-04). "Women and Angels: Female Annunciations" (Internet). Pino Blasone via Scribd.com. Retrieved 2013-10-26.

• Clearly self-published. Fails WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk)

• Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that fact alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV, including Wikipedia:RNPOV, Wikipedia:DUE, Wikipedia:BALASPS, Wikipedia:MNA, as well as Wikipedia:RNPOV and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Religion. Under the ‘’About’’ section of his Scribd.com profile page, the author of this article describes himself as ‘'"An independent scholar and essayist now, taught Latin and philosophy, and worked as a cultural journalist; published essays, verse and fiction, in Italian or in English.”’’ Verification of this can be found by visiting this link. Additional information about this author can also be located on his Academia.edu website, which can be accessed using this link. I believe that given the author’s educational and career background, the manner by which his article came to be published is of relatively minor significance. He is clearly an example of a reliable source. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Catholic Church; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Administrative Committee; Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Board of Trustees (2011-03-09). New American Bible: Translated From the Original Languages With Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources (Revised ed.). Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press. p. 12. ASIN 1935302582. ISBN 978-1-935302-58-2. OCLC 707237138. Retrieved 2013-10-09. * [2:5] Man: the Hebrew word 'adam is a generic term meaning "human being." In chaps. 2–3, however, the archetypal human being is understood to be male (Adam), so the word 'adam' is translated "man" here. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help)

• Where is any assertion given about the sex of angels? Elizium23 (talk)

• This reference was included to provide alternative interpretations to certain passages in the Book of Daniel. Previous discussion concerning these passages in the Book of Daniel, along with related discussion on the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Catholic Spiritual Direction. "Angels: From the Teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas" (Internet). Catholic Spiritual Direction. Retrieved 2013-10-26.

• No evidence that Aquinas advocated any particular sex of angels from his own writings. Elizium23 (talk)

• Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Making necessary assumptions as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Edward, Paul (1967). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1st ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. ASIN 0028949501. ISBN 978-0-028949-60-4. LCCN 67010059. OCLC 369093. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help)

• Freeman, Eileen Elias (1994-09-01). Touched By Angels (1st ed.). New York, NY: Warner Books. ASIN 0446670332. ISBN 978-0-446670-33-3. LCCN 93010231. OCLC 45624192. ...angelic genders are so totally unlike the two we know on Earth that we just can't recognize the concept in angels. Some philosophers have even speculated that every angel is a specific gender, a different physical and spiritual orientation to life. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help)

• Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Giovetti, Paola (1993). Angels: The Role of Celestial Guardians and Beings of Light. Translated by Toby McCormick. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser. ASIN 0877287791. ISBN 978-0877287797. LCCN 92044084. OCLC 27173025. Retrieved 2013-10-09. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help)

• Glenn, Paul J. (June 1978). A Tour of the Summa (2nd ed.). Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers. ASIN 0895550814. ISBN 978-0895550811. LCCN 78066307. OCLC 155030750. Retrieved 2013-10-26. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |trans_chapter= (help)

• A quote is necessary to see if this author himself provided any analysis of Aquinas' writings, which did not in themselves address the sex of the angels. Elizium23 (talk)

• I provided the necessary quotes in the course of my previous explanations, located under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Also, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Making necessary assumptions as that may provide clarification as to why Aquinas's writings need not explicitly advocate any particular sex or gender in order for me to use them as a supporting reference. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Godwin, Malcolm (1990). Angels An Endangered Species. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. p. 43. ASIN 0671706500. ISBN 0671706500. LCCN 90033122. OCLC 21227232. Retrieved 2013-11-13. "The Sumerian root of the word Gabri is GBR, gubernator, or governor. Some argue that it means Gibor, power or hero. Gabri-el is the Governor of Eden and the ruler of the Cherubim. But Gabri-el is unique amongst an otherwise male or androgynous host, for it is almost certain that this great Archangel is the only female in the higher echelons." {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help)

• Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hopler, Whitney. "Are Angels Male or Female? (What Are Angel Genders?)". About.com. Retrieved 2013-10-09.

• Questionable reliability Elizium23 (talk)

• I understand your point Elizium23, but I still disagree. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lewis, James R.; Oliver, Evelyn Dorothy (2008-05-01). Angels A to Z (2nd ed.). Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press. pp. 156–157. ASIN 1578592127. ISBN 978-1-578592-12-8. LCCN 2008001285. OCLC 434213392. Retrieved 2013-10-09. Angels are perceived as either male or female by people who feel they have actually seen them or feel that they have a guardian angel. Theologians, on the other hand, have usually considered angels to be androgynous, or to be neither distinctly male nor female, but to combine maleness and femaleness in perfect wholeness. … Artists commonly portray angels without distinct sexuality, sometimes portraying them in a prepubescent human form. The only angel commonly thought to be of the female, however, is the archangel Gabriel, who is commonly depicted with decidedly feminine features. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_chapter= and |chapterurl= (help)

• Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Martínez, Florentino García (2012-11-09). Between Philology and Theology: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Jewish Interpretation. Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism. Vol. 162. edited by Hindy Najman and Eibert Tigchelaar. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Publishers. ASIN 9004243933. ISBN 978-9004243934. LCCN 2012037817. OCLC 812018035. Retrieved 2013-12-04. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |trans_chapter= (help)

• I would like to add this source, previously introduced by Macrakis on 19:17, 29 November 2013, into our discussion. I have no objections to this source, per se, other than to comment that not having read the text yet myself, judging from the title I'm inclined to wonder if it would be more appropriate supporting another statement under the section on Gabriel#Judaism rather than as a supporting source to the current statement under the section on Gabriel#Christianity. Either way, assuming good faith, I have no objections to the use of this source. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Osborn, Lil Abdo (1994). "Female Representations of the Holy Spirit in Bahá'í and Christian Writings and their Implications for Gender Roles". Bahá'í Studies Review (Peer Reviewed, Academic Journal). 4 (1). London, UK: Association for Baha'i Studies English-Speaking Europe. Retrieved 17 November 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |doi_brokendate=, |registration=, |subscription=, and |nopp= (help)

• I would like to introduce this source into our discussion as well. I discovered this source under the section on Islam where it is already listed as a reference in relation to something there. This reference comes from a Peer Reviewed Academic Journal. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ronner, John (1993-03). Know Your Angels: The Angel Almanac With Biographies of 100 Prominent Angels in Legend & Folklore-And Much More!. Murfreesboro, TN: Mamre Press. p. 70–72, 73. ASIN 0932945406. ISBN 9780932945402. LCCN 93020336. OCLC 27726648. Retrieved 2013-11-15. Gender of Angels. Theologians have often considered angels to be androgynous: In other words, angels don't have a divided male or female sexuality. In this theory, each angel would combine maleness and femaleness within itself in a prefect wholeness, a unity that goes beyond the normal understanding of sexuality. Whether angels are androgyns or not, they often are perceived as either male or female by persons who feel they have a guardian angel. Nevertheless, it has been common for Christian artists to blur sexual distinctions when they portray angels — frequently showing them as effeminate youths. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |trans_chapter= (help)

• I would like to introduce this source into our discussion as well. This source supports my claim that angels (such as Gabriel) have been thought of as androgynous beings, possessing a prefect wholeness of both maleness and femaleness, rather than a divided male or female sex/gender. I should also point out that the source says Theologians, not Christian Theologians, therefore I believe that this source also provides support for my assertion that the statement at the beginning of the article should be about Gabriel's sex/gender in general, rather than about what any specific religion or religious denomination believes or doesn't believe. Specifics on religious beliefs belong under the religion's own category. General, introductory-type statements--such as the one that I wrote--belong in the introductory part of the article.
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Serres, Michael (1995-09-01). Hurd, Philippa (ed.). Angels: A Modern Myth (in French). translated from the French by Francis Cowper. Paris, France; New York, NY: Flammarion. pp. 12–13. ASIN 2080135716. ISBN 9782080135711. OCLC 33355502. Retrieved 2013-10-29. "The perfect message: the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary transforms the Word into a flesh that is living, thinking and divine. On its own, language is a chattering noise, hollow and empty; it means nothing until it is embodied, made flesh. The perfect messenger. The perfect messenger: the archangel Gabriel enacts the Annunciation, announcing to the Virgin that she is about to become the mother of God. His word exists doubly, as both word and act. It is this perfect dual embodiment that has made the scene of the Annunciation one of the most frequently represented — and perhaps the most beautiful — in all of Western art. Van Eyck brothers (1666-1426; 1385-1440), The Ghent Alter-Piece. The Adoration of the Lamb: The Annunciation, 1426-32. Detail, upper left panel when closed. St Bavo Cathedral, Ghent, Belgium." {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_chapter= and |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

• I would like to introduce this source into our discussion as well. It contains a large collection of religious art, and not just of Gabriel. Combined with the examples that can easily be found by searching through Commons:Category:Gabriel, Commons:Category:Depictions of Gabriel as female or androgynous also contains an even more numerous number of examples of religious iconography where Gabriel is clearly depicted as either female or androgynous. This book, along with the 2 Wiki Commons categories, clearly supports my previous claim. Crice88 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Updated source with page numbers and quotes (pictures are also on these page numbers). Crice88 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Virtue, Doreen (2012-01-15). The Angel Therapy Handbook. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House. ASIN 1401918360. ISBN 978-1-401918-36-1. LCCN 2010032457. OCLC 503042509. Retrieved 2013-10-09. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help)

• Hay House is a self-publishing house. Fails WP:RS Elizium23 (talk)

• Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV, including Wikipedia:RNPOV, Wikipedia:DUE, Wikipedia:BALASPS, Wikipedia:MNA, as well as Wikipedia:RNPOV and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Religion. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Virtue, Doreen (2010-10-01). "3, Gabriel". Archangels 101: How to Connect Closely with Archangels Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Gabriel and Others for Healing, Protection, and Guidance (1st ed.). Carlsbad, CA: Hay House. pp. 41–53. ASIN 140192638X. ISBN 9781401926380. LCCN 2010005085. OCLC 503042513. Retrieved 2013-11-25. Artists throughout time have portrayed the angel of the Annunciation and other images of Gabriel with feminine features, long hair, flowing gown, and—if you look closely at the Renaissance paintings—a feminine figure. Perhaps this is because Gabriel is so closely aligned with the Divine feminine situations of pregnancy, birth, and communication. Of course, angels have no true gender identification since they don't have physical bodies. However, their energy is distinctly male or female according to their specialties, with Archangel Michael being a perfect example of traditional brawny male strength. Gabriel, in contrast, exudes soft, nurturing, feminine strength. {{cite book}}: Check |asin= value (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_chapter= and |chapterurl= (help)

• Added source with page numbers and quotations 12/7. Although this source might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors) could be understood as self-published material. Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV, including Wikipedia:RNPOV, Wikipedia:DUE, Wikipedia:BALASPS, Wikipedia:MNA, as well as Wikipedia:RNPOV and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Religion. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Young, Rev. Annette (2003). "Archangels: Gabriel". Belvidere, IL: Angel Focus Interfaith Ministry. Retrieved 2013-11-15. The only Archangel depicted as female in art and literature, Gabriel is known as the "messenger" Angel and is one of the four Archangels named in Hebrew tradition and is considered one of the two highest-ranking Angels in Judeo-Christian and Islamic religious lore. Apart from Michael, she is the only Angel mentioned by name in the Old Testament. She is a powerful and strong Archangel, and those who call upon her will find themselves pushed into action that leads to beneficial results.

• Angel Focus is a self-publishing house. Fails WP:RS Elizium23 (talk)

• Although Angel Focus Interfaith Ministry might be interpreted as self-published, that alone does not diminish the validity of its content. Technically the Roman Catholic Church, along with all of it’s corporate subsidiaries (i.e., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) along with any and all of their authorized publishers and distributors). Just for clarification, would you support the removal of all references to published content that can be attributable to the Roman Catholic Church or that has been authored by or authorized for publication under one or more recognized Successors to St. Peter? If not, the exclusion of this reference would violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV, including Wikipedia:RNPOV, Wikipedia:DUE, Wikipedia:BALASPS, Wikipedia:MNA, as well as Wikipedia:RNPOV and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Religion. The Angel Focus Interfaith Ministry clearly attributes its content to it’s author, Rev. Annette Young, who, by virtue of the salutation '’Rev. or Reverend’’, a salutation which provides much validation as this is the website for the ministry she apparently works with and contributes to. Previous discussion concerning the credibility and importance of this source can also be found under the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• This source clearly supports a male, female and androgynous Gabriel. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Most of these sources are unreliable. What's the point in commenting on unreliable sources that can't even be used on Wikipedia? Clean up the RfC, remove the unreliable sources, and then maybe you'll get some more comments. In any event, I think that I agree with all of Elizium23's comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC 2 of 2: Do the following statements concerning Gabriel's sex/gender variance meet the neutral point of view requirements?

Do the following statements concerning Gabriel's sex/gender variance meet the neutral point of view requirements? Please first read the section Talk:Gabriel#Gender issue re-visited 2013 and then provide any supporting or opposing comments, along with any comments/suggestions you might have. Your input is extremely appreciated. Crice88 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already voiced my position on the proposed addition and the sources thereof. It does not help your case to be WP:Wikilawyering and supplying WP:Walls of text to try and bolster your case. It is even less favorable when you accuse other editors like me of a conflict of interest here; it is difficult for me not to take that as a personal attack. You are concentrating on NPOV and the niceties thereof when you should be reading about verifiability, original research, and reliable secondary sources instead. I stand by my objections to the unreliable sources you propose. Now I appreciate your efforts towards dispute resolution but opening two RFCs at once with such a muddy discussion page already is not going to help matters. I see that almost three days have gone by with zero additional participants in the discussion. I think people are coming here and scared off by all the hot air, frankly. Your attempts to minimize our objections are misguided and show your willingness to engage in original research in order to make your point. Just stick to what sources say, reliable sources, and everything will be fine. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see why we should be wasting time for this fringe bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please do not use profanity on Wikipedia--its offensive. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Crice88, as to your substantive arguments, the Christian theological literature is chock-full of statements that angels are "pure spirits", "without material bodies distinguished by sex", "sexless", "asexual", etc. You yourself cite Aquinas as saying they are "pure spirits", yet somehow manage to interpret this as saying that angels can be of various sexes. The situation may be different in ancient Judaism, where angels appear to be unambiguously male (Florentino Garcia Martinez, Between Philology and Theology: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Jewish Interpretation, Brill 2012, p. 17); I don't know what the modern Jewish position is (or if there is one). Martinez contrasts this with the New Testament, which "insists on the spiritual nature of angelic beings, who are portrayed as asexual." p. 20 (with citations from Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Practically speaking, as Elizium23 says, you're deploying a bunch of irritating tactics which really aren't helping, especially since no one else appears to agree with you. --Macrakis (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• You've mentioned twice now that I'm alone, a statement which seems to beg the question whether you've taken the time to read the second sentence of the Wikipedia:Consensus article which specifically states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote". In other words, whether I'm alone or not alone is completely irrelevant--what is relevant is the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus and Wikipedia:Closing discussions)
• Under the Reaching consensus through discussion section, the article specifically states "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Just in-case it isn't obvious, this is precisely what I've been trying to do. I'm sorry if you believe that these discussions are nothing but a bunch of irritating tactics, however this is part of the consensus-building process.
• So far I've responded in great detail to the previously raised concerns over neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, including reliable sources. On the other hand, your arguments have largely consisted only of assertions that my sources are not reliable (which I then not only responded to but then I also added additional, more reliable sources that only made my argument all the stronger) or assertions stating that I'm alone. In other words, I've provided reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. You've argued that my sources are not reliable because they're not reliable (which isn't going to fly) and have stated that I'm out-numbered (which also isn't going to fly).
• Seeing as how so far I believe that I've fulfilled (and I plan on continuing to fulfill) my obligation to respond to any valid, reasonable objections as to my choice of reliable and verifiable sources, (and for the record assertions that my sources are not reliable because they're not reliable isn't a valid or reasonable objection), unless another user contributes a far-stronger contradictory argument than the ones that have been raised thus far, I plan on adding my original edit back into the introduction section of the article. I believe such actions on my part would be justified and supported under the Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching consensus through discussion guidelines.
• I don't see any reason to fight over your edit under the section on Gabriel#Christianity, however I will point out that if your Brill source by Florentino Garcí Martínez is about Judaism, then I'm sort of confused as to why you didn't add something under the section on Gabriel#Judaism in addition to Christianity. Other than Aquinas, the other sources that I provided did not specifically make mention of Christianity. A few of them mentioned Theologians, but not specifically Christian Theologians. I haven't read your Brill source by Florentino Garcí Martínez yet so for now, assuming good faith, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however I really think additional sources on specifically Christian Theologians would better support your statement under the section on Gabriel#Christianity. Crice88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Look, now you're just edit-warring for your preferred revisions. You started an RFC in good faith to resolve this dispute, and so far every editor who has weighed in has rightly objected to your proposals and I, in particular, tore apart your list of supposedly-reliable sources, pointing out that they do not comply with the Wikipedia policies you keep citing. Now you have added 21,232 bytes to the article in less than two hours. I am sorry but that is just SPAM. Please slow down and allow the consensus to develop. You currently have no right to add this to the article until you succeed in winning the argument here on talk. Elizium23 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor note: Added bullet point to 13:49, 4 December 2013 edit to facilitate clarity and easier reading. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• You didn't tear apart any list. Please read my responses to your comments under each of the references listed above, along with Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Closing discussions. You're ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning how the dispute resolution process works and wrongly assuming that your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the only correct interpretations.
• Consensus isn't reached just because a few people agree with you. Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that Crice88 continued their POV pushing on Wikidata, where they added info that Gabriel is female and seven sources. I am now going to revert their edits as fringe.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think you’re mistaken on which ideas qualify as Fringe. Assertions that Gabriel is exclusively male must be backed up with reliable sources.
• Multiple sources have been provided which clearly document that Gabriel can be interpreted as either female or androgynous, however no sources have been provided which clearly document that Gabriel can be interpreted as exclusively male. Therefore, since Wikipedia requires that all article content be Verifiable and not based on original research, in following Wikipedia:Editing policy we’d have to remove all exclusive male gender labels because "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable.” Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Partial article content dispute discussion took place between Elizium23, Macrakis, and Crice88 on Crice88’s talk page, under section Gabriel's Sex/Gender. Please keep all future article content dispute discussions on this talk page only. Multiple talk pages are too confusing. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Created "Formal warning" under "Gabriel's Sex/Gender" section on Elizium23's talk page, Macrakis's talk page, and Ymblanter's talk page concerning Edit warring and vandalism. Please keep all article content dispute discussions on this talk page only. Multiple talk pages are too confusing. Crice88 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read the policies before adding this material not supported by reliable sources any further, otherwise you are likely to be taken to WP:ANI and topic-banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, and one more thing you do not understand is what vandalism is. Removing fringe material is not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

When the content is backed up by 19 sources, and at least 10-12 of them are definitely reliable, especially with religious art that literally goes back hundreds of years, no way is it fringe. I've read what vandalism is on Wikipedia's vandalism page. It's "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." When items are under dispute and even tagged with in-text dispute tags, I think that's "compromising the integrity of Wikipedia" by violating NPOV and pretending there isn't an active dispute. I've provided so much explanation and have continually added more and more sources. It's quite obvious that the real issue is that you guys just don't agree with what's being said so you're trying to prevent it from being used. I seriously don't get it because in doing this you're going against the very spirit and purpose of pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for and exists to do. You're trying to censor a mainstream, perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Censorship isn't right. Crice88 (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem really is that you are a new editor and try to add fringe views to the article. To support these views, you brought a large number of non-reliable sources. You failed to gain consensus and then started to edit-war. Really, you are the only one defending this view. Furthermore, you accused one of the editors in having conflict of interest. Now, still failing to gain consensus, you started to accuse us in not really understanding the spirit of Wikipedia. Well, for a brand new single-purpose editor this is not a very clever policy. However, you just forget that if you want these fringe views to be added to the article it is your responsibility to forget that they are fringe and that they are based on reliable sources (i.e. that sources are reliable). So far, you failed to do this, and thus failed to gain consensus to add them to the article. Concerning vandalism, please read it again: It clearly says that what was done is not vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I accused Elizium23 of a conflict of interest because I genuinely believed that there was a strong likelihood that this was the case. I stand corrected because another user on the noticeboard corrected me by briefly why this wasn't the case. I don't make a habit of accusing anyone, either in real life or online of having a conflict of interest unless I really genuinely believe that there's bias that's unexplainable any other way. When I'm wrong or mistaken I can admit it. I'm an adult. On the other hand, when I feel like I'm being bullied into accepting something that I know isn't right, I'm going to speak up. Can you please explain whether the fact that there are no sources, either reliable or not reliable, which support the idea of an exclusively male Gabriel doesn't violate Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth in your opinion? Is the assertion that Gabriel is allegedly exclusively male is ok to be unsourced? And what sources can you offer that support your claim that the idea of a female or androgynous Gabriel is fringe? According to WP:FRINGE, you need to demonstrate that mainstream scholarship in the field of something like angelology does not support such an idea. It's not about what you believe is mainstream or true, its about what you can back up with sources. To say that something is fringe, you have to demonstrate not only that it's not "broadly supported by scholarship in its field" but also "sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea" in relation "to the mainstream idea". Its right there on WP:FRINGE in the first paragraph. As I said before, you're clearly not following Wikipedia dispute policies or even the editing policies. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Crice88 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: sources for male. English does not have genders, but many other languages do, including Greek. There is a vast amount of Theological literature about Gabriel on these languages, and it is pretty clear from the grammar to start with that all this literature mentions Gabriel in male gender. For example, the Russian translation of the Gospel of Lucas (1.26) says "послан был Ангел Гавриил", which is clear indication of male gender. Female would be "послана была Ангел Гавриил".--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Greek or Russian so obviously I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, of course, to use the language itself to argue an exclusive male gender isn't flawless by far. There are many people who have gender variant or gender neutral names in English, such as Sam, Reagan, Skylar, Sage, Quinn, Alex, etc. Also, I know that of the languages that have explicit genders, those genders aren't always consistent from one language to another, whether we're talking about animate being or inanimate things. So, while I certainly see your point, I don't think language, including Gabriel's own name, really meets the criteria that WP:FRINGE is looking for. Crice88 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

<- For what's worth, "Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's...gender" strikes me as a bit of an odd way of putting it, even coming as it does after the preceeding sentence and being followed by "in both art and literature", given that there obviously isn't any actual evidence that Gabriel existed, let alone had a gender. The phrasing of that sentence seems to suggest, at least to me, that the information available is evidence of gender as opposed to just being examples of a particular interpretation. That's probably not its intent I assume. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point, although technically there's no evidence to suggest that God or Gods exists either, so the various interpretations are sort of all there is. The second sentence came as a result of the first one sounding even stranger when it was by itself. The second sentence sort of served a duel purpose of supporting the first sentence but also briefly elaborating on it in a general way. Do you think it could be improved or worded better? Crice88 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How about "descriptions and depictions" or something like that ? Perhaps looking at how information is presented in the Ardhanarishvara article might help. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

{outdent} @Binksternet: I moved your orphaned comment here from End notes {reflist} section —Telpardec 08:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• The Quran says that Gabriel appeared before Mary the mother of Jesus "as a man in all respects." Gabriel is also described as a handsome beardless young man with curly hair and a pure face. Some traditions have Gabriel appearing the form of Joseph, Mary's companion. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)