Talk:Michael (given name)

Meaning of the name

July 21 2004: I changed the translation of Michael to include "Likened unto God," because that's what my rabbi once told me. Archangel Michael was so powerful because he was "like God." I have no other authority than a memory of Rabbi Joey, and I beg to be corrected. Also, I replaced "the Lord" with "God" because I think it's a more literal translation of the Hebrew root "el". In Hebrew, "the Lord" is better translated "Adonai," and "el" is used to refer to many gods, not only the God of Abraham. (Orthodox sticklers note: I haven't blanked out he middle letter of "god" because the commandment refers to God's name, not the word "god." Please excuse me.) --Cladist July 21 2004

Edit: I thought Michael meant "Who is like God?" a rhetorical Jewish exclamation, meaning "To whom can God be compared?"

The name definitely means "Who is like God?": see A J Kolatch, "The Complete Dictionary of English and Hebrew First Names". Runcorn 21:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the meaning is "Who is like God" without the question mark. It's not a question, it's a statement: "...who is like God." I.e., the name-bearer "is like God."

Currently there is a version with, and one without a Question mar (see also box on the right). Can someone clarify which one is correct? And if both should be, make a case for one of both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.49.137 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those of you who disagree with the "One who is like God interpretation", on linguistic or theological grounds—please recognize that it is a very common interpretation, even if it seems "incorrect" to you.

It is not difficult to find examples. As one source, I've cited a discussion of an Irish devotional, 15th century or earlier, that lists five "victories" that it says make the archangel Michael "like unto God." http://www.omniumsanctorumhiberniae.com/2015/09/michael-one-who-is-like-unto-god.html

Linguistically, it is not uncommon for a phrase to omit a pronoun, nor is it uncommon for or a word or phrase to have multiple meanings, even opposite ones, over time. Statesman 88 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I know some hebrew, and it is definitely a question. Though for the purposes of a definition I'm not sure the question mark would be necessary or correct. The question is also meant to be rhetorical. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:35, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I have already pointed out that the translation "One who is like God" is impossible.--Runcorn 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You did say: "The name definitely means "Who is like God?": see A J Kolatch, "The Complete Dictionary of English and Hebrew First Names"." But as far as I can see, you did not point out that the translation "One who is like God" is impossible. I would like to learn more about this. How is it impossible? Sunray 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the Hebrew for "One who is like God" would be "Echad ke-ayl".--Runcorn 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is unusual to have the meaning of a name as a question. Why must it be translated as a question? Sunray 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe unusual, but that's what it is--a question. "Mi" = "Who"; "cha" = "is like"; "el" = "God." There is no "one" there. Note, it's not a real question, it's a rhetorical question whose point, seems to me, is that there is no one like God, which rules out the translation "One who is like God."

BTW the content under discussion here is dictionary content which is why it's been transwikied to Wiktionary and should be removed from Wikipedia following Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 14:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What bothers me about that translation is how the question mark gets added. "Who is like God," without a question mark has quite a different meaning. Sure etymology is dictionary content, however, that isn't the only content. Second para and other parts of the articll are encyclopedic. Sunray 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an illustration of the difficulty of translating from another language, especially one so different from English. I have another reference: "Oxford Dictionary of the Bible" ed. W R F Browning, Oxford University Press 1996, art. "Michael": "Hebrew for 'Who is like God?'". I can't see that an explanation of the meaning of the name is beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia.--Runcorn 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When the article talks about the rate of uptake of the name; that is beyond etymology.

There are several dictionaries out there with different explanations of the meaning. I grant you "Who is like God?" is the most common. However, the phrase also appears without the question mark. Which led me to wonder. Sunray 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that an explanation of the meaning of the name is beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia -- then you disagree with WP:WINAD. Note also that the sources you have cited regarding the meaning, are dictionaries. Pan Dan 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I could have cited the Oxford Companion to the Bible, or several other books that are not dictionaries.--Runcorn 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not only an explanation of meaning given. There is also information on its usage and other facts. Sunray 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't haggle about the content on Michael's popularity. The content on its etymology and variants should go. Pan Dan 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the policy on this. You will have to point me to the line that says "it is forbidden to have any etymological information in articles" (or some such statement). Many articles have etymological information as part of the article (see, for example Culture. I would think that such an approach only makes the article more informative (and sometimes interesting) for the reader. In the case of an article about a name, it seems pretty basic to have that included. Sunray 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy that I linked to explains what dictionary content is, and the title of the page is "Wikipedia Is Not a Dictionary." That seems clear. However I'm not going to haggle over that either.

Let me just lay out what I think the ideal thing to do here would be. I think we should do here what was done with the page Emily. The dictionary content was removed, and a link to List of most popular given names was added at the bottom (I see a vandal has removed that; have just put it back). No information was lost, and I think the information is now presented in a more coherent fashion. The page Emily is now a disambiguation page. The reader seeking information about the etymology and variants of Emily is referred to Wikt:Emily. The reader seeking information about its popularity is referred to List of most popular given names. Pan Dan 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My reaction to that is that the people who worked on Emily obviously haven't put in nearly the same amount of time and effort as the people who have produced Michael. So far, in this discussion, you have given short shrift to the points raised by me and simply quoted policy in response. I tend to disagree with your interpretation of that policy and have asked you to show me where it says that an article cannot have etymological information in it. This you have failed to do. Should we move on? Sunray 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I already said I wouldn't haggle about this. I've said my piece, and as far as I'm concerned the article can stay as it is for now. However you might want to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary just one more time; also check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Linking to Wiktionary. Pan Dan 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an incomplete etymology. It only deals in "Michael" first attested Biblically. There is evidence it has direct links at least as far back as Neo-Bablylonia and is tied to Meschach/Misael (cf. Chaldea link https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/meshach/; and Akkadia by extension https://www.behindthename.com/name/meshach) 2600:1700:940:79B0:55AA:7B87:B468:21AE (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Princess Michael

In the second paragraph is written:

"although there are women with the name Michael, such as Michael Learned and Princess Michael of Kent"

Princess Michael is not named Michael. Her husband is Prince Michael, and so she is styled Princess Michael just as the wife of John Doe can be called Mrs John Doe.

I think the reference should be removed. Michaelphonic (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See also the section below Princess Michael of Kent by OldStopfordian.

Maybe "women named Michael including Princess Michael of Kent and the actresses Michael Learned" should be replaced by (or something similar to) "women named Michael the actresses Michael Learned. Princess Michael of Kent's name is actually her title, the female equivalent of her husband's title" {though "equivalent to her husband's" appears in the article about her of sounds better to me}. Are there any other well known genuine examples? Mcljlm (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Michael Burnham?

Rulers named Michael

British Royal Family

   Prince Michael of Kent (born 1942), cousin of Elizabeth II
   Princess Michael of Kent (born 1945), author and wife of Prince Michael

In what way is Princess Michael of Kent 'a ruler named Michael'? If my name is Eric the Bold and my wife is refered to as Mrs Eric the Bold, does that make my wife a ruler named Eric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.167.173 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Prince Michael is not a ruler. The queen is!178.176.223.60 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian Feast days - please add Orthodox dates

In the Orthodox Church, Saint Michael's principal feast day is November 8 (November 21 by most Orthodox churches since they use the Julian calendar), where he is honored along with the rest of the "Bodiless Powers of Heaven" (i.e. angels) as their Supreme Commander. Please add this to the locked article!178.176.223.60 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you simply create an account and verify your email address, you can do it yourself. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. Your factoid does not appear to be germane to this article. So don't do it yourself. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

in the Forms across languages the Hebrew variation isn't present. why?

| Hebrew || מִיכָאֵל, מִיכָאֵל מִיכָאֵל , Mikha'el ||

Gshamir (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article clearly states:- "In Hebrew, "מיכה" (Mikha) [ˈmiχa] is a common shortened form of "מיכאל" (Mikha'el)" I agree this is not in the list, but Wikipedia prefers text descriptions to lists where possible.
Before there are any accusations of bias, the very next sentence is "In Arabic, it is "میکائیل" (Mīkāʼīl; pronounced [miːkæːˈʔiːl]" and Arabic is not in the list either. Arjayay (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Princess Michael of Kent

It has already been pointed out that Princess Michael of Kent should not be included here as it is not truly her name but simply a title derived from her husband's name. The reasoning for this is that she was not born a princess but became one through marriage. Her actual name (as distinct from Royal title) is given in the Wikipedia entry for her as "Baroness Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida; née von Reibnitz" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Michael_of_Kent. Although I cannot profess to knowing what her family and friends call her I am willing to bet it's not "Michael", perhaps just Marie, her first given name. Can we please remove the title "Princess Michael of Kent" from this article as it is not strictly a name. OldStopfordian (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

See my addition to the section above Princess Michael by Michaelphonic. Mcljlm (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

unbalanced parens

The second closing parenthesis in the first sentence does not have a corresponding open parenthesis: Michael /ˈmaɪkəl/ is a male given name that comes from the Hebrew: מִיכָאֵל / מיכאל‎ (Mīkhāʼēl, pronounced [miχaˈʔel]), derived from the question מי כאל mī kāʼēl) 208.253.23.130 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No question mark!

The name Michael means "Who is like God". It's not a question, rhetorical or otherwise. It's a statement. The archangel Michael being the closest to God and on God's right as he was the most like God. Likened unto God. I have grown up with this name and that is what it has always meant. Only in recent years has the meaning become a question by adding a question mark. It may be politically correct to question who could possibly be like God, but no-one is saying they are God. Just like God. Don't we all aspire to be like God? It seems that this page is now being used for a source on every other baby naming page and thus continues to perpetuate the question mark. No question mark needed. Michael, who is like God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.63.41 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's rubbish. In Hebrew, the first syllable of מי כאל mī kāʼēl, means "who?" (the question word). The Hebrew for your meaning "X, who is like God" would be very different: אֲשֶׁר כאל asher kāʼēl.

Please contribute to Wikipedia discussions based on evidence in WP:Reliable sources, rather than your own opinions. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Micheal

I see this a lot, and assume it is typically just a mistake by people who can't spell properly. But recently, I've been told that this is the correct spelling in Ireland, and that it properly should have some kind of accent mark as well. There isn't any wikipedia entry for "Micheal", it just re-directs straight to "Michael". If correct, it should probably be added either to the list of variant forms near the top, or to the list of equivalent names in other European countries. Lathamibird (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Burnham

Another - fictional - female Michael: Michael Burnham. Hektor (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Micheal (name) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

mikhail

Since Mikhail redirects here i added the list of people with the name mikhail page along with the list of people with the name michael pageHydra24538 (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Split between Michael and Michael (Archangel)

I think sections 1 and 2 can be merged into Michael (archangel), and parts of Michael (archangel) can be included in the name/origin section.

Themadprogramer (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Michael (archangel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)