Thread:The Many-Angled One/@comment-32317643-20170630214049/@comment-26066818-20170706162852

Sorry, Jack, but ultimately I still agree with Annabell.

First, in context the Zarathos section was clearly referring to the Zadkiel revelation. Your disapproval of the phrase "fallen angel" doesn't change that.

As far as the Handbooks go, the situation is clear: Zarathos's fate after the retcon was ambiguous in 2010 with A-Z #14, but as of the Secret Wars handbook in 2015, the OHOTMU has settled on the position opposing you. Zarathos is the Spirit of Vengeance bonded to Blaze, an angel. You may disagree, but from experience let me tell you: As far as Wiki policy goes, objecting to a Handbook's explicit word is a non-starter of an argument.

Personally, I don't consider the Handbooks as sacrosanct as other Mods/Admins here. And I argued too hard against the "Alejandra Blaze" error from Circle of Fire to hypocritically defend the same limited series to you. But even ignoring the Handbooks entirely, I still disagree with your position.

Everyone here agrees on two facts from Ghost Rider Vol 6 #18 and the following storyline. One, John Blaze was not bonded to a demon, but to an angel. Two, Zarathos is not explicitly mentioned at any time by the retcon. The trouble is, you have drawn a conclusion which you are claiming is a third fact: Zarathos was no longer bonded to Blaze.

Your argument is that "John Blaze was thought to be bonded to a demon named Zarathos. Now we known Blaze was actually bonded to an angel. Therefore...Zarathos was not bonded to Blaze."

However, an equally logical train of thought says "John Blaze was thought to be bonded to a demon named Zarathos. Now we known Blaze was actually bonded to an angel. Therefore...Zarathos was an angel, not a demon."

Your conclusion comes from treating "Zarathos is a demon" as an indisputable fact. However, "Ghost Rider is a demon" was just as indisputable until GR6 #18. So, while your conclusion is rational, it is not fact.

No in-continuity source explicitly supports your conclusion. Several out-of-continuity but official canon sources explicitly call your conclusion into question or outright contradict it. Based on the available evidence and sources, it is not reasonable for the Wiki to accept your conclusion as indisputable. The existing ambiguity of Zarathos's fate post-Zadkiel retcon has been chronicled adequately on his page. Pending more explicit statements, that's how it'll have to stay.