This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Metatron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 120 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Metatron was copied or moved into Elisha ben Abuyah with this edit on 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Metatron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 120 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Metatron was copied or moved into Elisha ben Abuyah with this edit on 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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.