Talk:Devil/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hatnote

This page is about personifications of evil in various cultures and religious traditions around the world. For the specific figure in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin, see Satan. For conceptions of evil spirits in general around the world, see Demon. For other uses, see Devil/Archive 4 (disambiguation).

@Moxy: Once again, I do not see why you are so opposed to my changes to the hatnote. Your baseless accusation that I am "trying to make us lose readers" is ridiculous; I am trying to clarify what each of these articles is about and help the readers find the article that they are looking for. That is the whole reason why we have hatnotes to begin with. Currently, however, the hatnote for this article does absolutely nothing to tell the readers what the article is about. The problem is that, in English, the word "Devil" most commonly either refers to Satan, the specific figure in the Abrahamic religions, or to demons (i.e. evil spirits) in general. The definition that we have adopted for this article, in which "Devil" refers to various personifications of evil in cultures around the world, is not a very conventional one, nor is it even really intuitive. You keep insisting that the hatnote is "ridiculously" long, but it is not even two full lines, which is shorter than many of the hatnotes we already have in other articles. Furthermore, the hatnote has to be that long because we need to list the articles Satan and demon and clarify what it is that each of the three articles is about, since the titles alone do not do that. I will admit that the one I added to the article Heaven was rather excessive, but I do not consider the hatnote for this article or the one for Satan even remotely excessive, but rather absolutely necessary for clarification purposes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your adding paragraph notes all over...Not sure how a giant overly detailed and western centric paragraph before articles even starts is helpful for our readers. WP:ONESHORTHAT is pretty clear on adding giant paragraphs like this. We don't add a paragraph before the beginning because most people only read the first paragraph.... we're trying to keep readership not lose them or direct them to 17 different articles before they've even started this article.--Moxy (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: The hatnote is not a "paragraph"; it is not even two lines. I do not know any world in which something that is not even two lines counts as a "paragraph." The hatnote is shorter than many of the hatnotes we already have for other articles. Furthermore, it only contained links to two other articles, both of which are the most common and intuitive definitions of the word "Devil." Maybe you should actually read the hatnotes I modified before reverting my changes to them. Your accusation that I am "trying to make us lose readers" is ridiculous; I am trying to clearly and concisely clarify what each of these articles is about so that readers can find the article they are looking for. That is the whole reason why we have hatnotes. Furthermore, we are an encyclopedia; our primary goal is to help people find and access information. Retaining readership is only a secondary goal that should not come at the cost of tricking readers into reading an article that they were never looking for to begin with instead of guiding them to the article they actually were looking for. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

read me ....then get others involved. Will need consensus to go against our protocols.--Moxy (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: It is not a "go[ing] against our protocols" because WP:ONESHORTHAT states that hatnotes "should generally be as concise as possible", but qualifies this saying that a title may be reasonably listed "if the other article could be reasonably expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question." In this case, that is clearly the case, because, when most people speak of "the Devil," they virtually always mean "Satan" and when people speak of "devils,' they virtually always mean "demons." I think that very few people searching for the word "Devil" are going to actually be looking for Devil-like figures in different cultures around the world, including ones that are virtually never referred to as "the Devil" in common speech. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a lot of assuming... and guess work at what readers think.... think it's best I explain some more.... the note is there as an afterthought after readers read the first paragraph or even just the first sentence and realize they're at the wrong article....it's a link of convenience. its not designed to draw readers in and lead them to other articles off the bat. We must also assume that readers know nothing about the topic when they arrive here... thus we should have no desire to lead them in a direction until they know what this is about..... again kiss.....don't make readers have to scroll before the article starts - Moxy (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: The hatnote I wrote does not "make readers have to scroll before the article starts"; even on my phone, I still did not have to scroll to get to the first sentence of the article. I was not trying to "draw people in" with the hatnote either. I was using it to clarify the arbitrary distinction that Wikipedia has made between the words "Devil" and "Satan," since they both originally had the exact same meaning and are virtually always used as synonyms in everyday speech. The only reason we even have two separate articles is because of an arbitrary distinction that a scholar named Jeffrey Burton Russell made in a book published in 1987. Wikipedia decided to follow his decision to use the word "Devil" to refer to any Devil-like figure in any culture around the world, while reserving the word "Satan" for specifically the Abrahamic Devil. If there is a problem here, then it is that we are using a highly nuanced and idiosyncratic distinction made by one academic thirty years ago to determine what to call the two articles, which inevitably makes it difficult and complicated to distinguish between what the two words mean under those definitions. My first proposal was to move the article currently titled "Devil" to Devil figure and make "Devil" a disambiguation page between Devil figure, Satan, and Demon, which I still think would be the best solution. The problem is that that proposal faced strong opposition from people who apparently really liked Russell's definition of the word "Devil" and were obstinately opposed to any efforts to clarify what the article "Devil" is really about. Since we cannot clarify with a disambiguation page, we are forced to do it using hatnotes, which means that hatnotes simply have to be as long as the ones I wrote. There is really no way we can make them any shorter without losing clarity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

never assume what you see is what others see

All. this should be in the article if you believe it's a point of confusion... not a hatnote detailing everything.. that again may cause others to scroll before they even have a chance to read a sentence. Best ask for third opinion.--Moxy (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

When hatnotes are created the editor should respect Wikipedia’s guidelines. The hatnote that the user Katolophyromai is trying to apply ignores the guidelines — it is not short or concise, it is too long. Hatnotes should generally should only list disambiguation pages. A hatnote should not contain discussions about various articles. A hatnote should not be used to lead readers away from content they are after that can be found on this page. That is the opposite purpose of a hatnote. Content on “Satan” belongs on this page, and Katolophyromai appears to be trying to lead readers to another page that also has content on the same topic. That is an incorrect use of a hatnote and violates the guidelines. (See: Wikipedia:Hatnote). The lengthy explanation the Katolophyromai gives about why there is an article about Devil and Satan is off-topic. The editor is welcome to hold forth on fringe opinions, but they are not appropriate here, and would be okay on his own user page. It is not helpful to load this talk page up with a lot of off-topic opinions. This talk section appears to be an extension of a previous talk section on this page “Content fork for Satan?" and a lot of the same ideas are being raised once again. Madisonesque (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: @Madisonesque: I am not "hold[ing] forth fringe opinions" and I am not trying to "lead readers away from content they are after"; I am trying to remove ambiguity in what this article is about. My discussion of the definitions of the words "Satan" and "Devil" is not off-topic in the slightest; the entire problem here is that we have adopted one scholar's unconventional and unintuitive definition of the word "Devil" rather than actually using the word as it is commonly used and as it is defined in the dictionary. As I have already explained in the section above, Merriam-Webster lists the very first definition of the word "Devil" as "the personal supreme spirit of evil often represented in Christian belief as the tempter of humankind, the leader of all apostate angels, and the ruler of hell —usually used with the —often used as an interjection, an intensive, or a generalized term of abuse." This entry does not use the word "Satan," but it is obvious here that that is the entity it is describing, by the references to "Christianity," "apostate angels," and "Hell." Dictionary.com gives the first definition of the word "Devil" as "the supreme spirit of evil; Satan." They literally define the "Devil" as "Satan"! Furthermore, I have, once again, already quoted Henry Ansgar Kelly's criticism of Russell's approach to the Devil on pages 3–4 of the introduction to his book Satan: A Biography, a 328-page scholarly monograph on the history of the concept of the Devil published by Cambridge University Press. Kelly writes that what Russell has really identified are "devil-analogues" and "Satan-look-a-likes." He continues, "To me, the only true devil is the Christian devil, that is Devil in all his various evolutions." Clearly, it is Russell's definition of the word "Devil" that is less widely used and accepted, yet, for some reason, we have written this entire article based solely on his definition. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Now you have added different definitions to the lead and not the article ...thus the lead does not summerizers the article per say but hatches out a debate between ideas while naming and link people that have very little value to the topic at hand. can we move this to the body were it should be?--Moxy (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming scholars in lead

Jeffrey Burton Russell is the only source I know who defines the word Devil as "the personification of evil found in a variety of cultures" and yet that definition is the one that this entire article is based on. I first suggested disambiguation, but no one was willing to accept that as a possibility, so then I proposed merely using a hatnote, but no one would even accept that, so now I am forced to include an explanation of the how Russell's definition differs from those adopted by most other sources in the first paragraph of the lead. We simply have no choice but to include his name in the lead, since this entire article is based on his unique definition of the word.

I am seriously tired and frustrated over arguing about all this. I have wasted over half my day arguing with a bunch of people online who will not even listen to anything I say over a basic issue of clarification that seems to me like it ought to be a complete no-brainer. It is days like this one that really make me wish I had never started editing Wikipedia at all. The whole reason I logged on this morning was because I was planning on working on the article Gorgias, since I found some more scholarly sources about him last night, but I have been so caught up in all this relentless squabbling and this whole game of insults that I have not even had a chance to start improving that article and it is already past 3:00 in the afternoon. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are vandalizing the lead, Katolophromia. Please get a consensus on on the talk page before you make huge changes to the lead. Madisonesque (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Madisonesque: I was not "vandalizing" the lead. WP:VANDALISM defines vandalism as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Vandalism is when someone types obscenities into the article or deliberately changes the information in the article to be inaccurate or engages in some other behavior deliberately intended to damage the encyclopedia. That is not what I was doing, nor was it what I was trying to do. I was trying to improve the encyclopedia by explaining and clarifying the definition of the word "Devil" and how different sources define it differently. I even cited a book published by the Cambridge University Press. You should never accuse another user of vandalism unless it is absolutely clear that that user had malicious intent. Now, since it is abundantly clear that no one here is willing to allow this article to include any other definition of the word "Devil" other than Jeffrey Burton Russell's, I am leaving. I am removing this article from my watchlist and never coming back to this article or, if I do come back, it will not be for a very long time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

By no point is @Katolophyromai: vandalizing here. He made good arguements why this article, that is based on "Russell's The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity"s definition, should not beused this way. To sum up the backgrounds (maybe it is not clear):

• We had almost identical articles ("Satan" and "Devil") until Katolophyromai started to clean the "Satan" article, which was once (like many articles about the Abrahamic religions) "bad" (many primary source, more cliche than scholary chaotic and so on...). Then Katolophyromai started to edit the Satan article and prepared it for GA. I and another user supoorted him as much as we could and finally, the article "Satan" made it to GA.
• Afterthat I decided to, at least, improve the "devil" article a bit more. Especially since there are suggestions on its talkpage, I decided to read the literature (including "Russell's The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity") there I found a definition, that clearly seperates the concept of "devil" and "Satan".
• I made some changes, based (!) on the concept of "Russell's The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity" and also touched by other books (however often just called "devil-like" since many other books just stated that "Ahriman for example" were merely the basis for the devi, but not the "devil" himself), that was quite easy for me, since I frequently read about "the devil in Islam" (including Iblis, nafs, shaitan, and figures touching this matter such as jinn, demons and so on) and about "gnosticism" (which also incorperates and emphazises the concept of the devil, although NOT as "Satan" but as the demiurge) The idea to make abstract philosophical viewpoints (already removed now) was also my idea, based on the terminilogy of "The Gnostic Bible" (that explained different concepts for the "personification of evil, such as mitigated dualism, absolute dualism and so on").
• Afterthat, this section was removed. I am fine with that, since it seems to be, no standart idea to explain the "devil" by different cosmological viewpoints, although it supported the idea of the "devil" as an philosopical approach to the devil as archetypical concept.
• Then, Katalophyromai suggested, the article should be changed to distinguishes it from the "devil" as "Satan" and the whole discussion we see here started.

The question here can be summed up as followin I guess: Is the definition given my "Russell's The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity" appropriate? Since, yes, the changes I made (and I was the one who first made some major changes after I saw that the "Satan" article can be dinstinguished from "devil") the article actually IS based on the thought, that Russels definition can be widely accepted. But IF (and thats probably an issue here, since English is not my mother tongue, I do not know how most people speak English, I just knew it from books and definitions and I trusted "Russels" here and noticed that Satan seems to be a proper name, turning towards the idea that the "devil" is for Englishspeakers an abstract cosmological concept just as Russel stated, when "Satan" and "Devil" are probably synonyms. and IF they are synonyms in for the common English speakers (just as Katolophyromai frequently showed us), when this article should not e about Russels notion of the devil. Another issue I observed is found in literature about Islam: "Iblis" who is "Satan", the term "devil" is sometimes unquestioningly applied to him (however he CONCEPT of devil just limitedly suits his role. The idea of "nafs" sames closer to the "devil" as Russel defines it (and also the term "shaitan" is applied to "nafs" but not "iblis" to "nafs"). Thus, we must find a consens that this article is EXACTLY about. Is it about "devil" (as synonym of Satan) or is it about a braoder concept of personification of evil (such as Russel stated)? If it is the former, we must consider Katolophyromais objection, that Russel is obviously alone with his definition, and maybe we must really rename the article to "Devil-like figures" (but not "Archetype devil", since, as objected prior, the term is in use by Jungian psychology). I hope I can clear up, and even if Kat's edits may be interupting, I am sure he is not vandalzing (since vandalizing needs the purpose to harm an article and if his objection, he supported with good reasons find no ear, he is right about editing as good as he can). I would suggest, we first clear the issues here, before making further edits. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing the lead

I have edited the lead section to improve it's serving as an introduction to the article and a summary, see this article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I have moved some content out of the lead and into sections inside the article where it seemed appropriate. Madisonesque (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tags

I added some tags for reasons stated in the section above (Content Fork for Satan). I feel like the concerns expressed above were not adequately addressed. It seems editors have taken Russell's definition of devil and his inclusion of the god Set as if it is universality accepted. In addition, the inclusion of Mara is clearly OR as the source does not call him a "devil" or "devil-like" about merely compares a story involving him and the Buddha with the story of Jesus and Satan. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close; the proposed target is occupied. This is not a move request under the process set out at WP:RM. If you think the article should not exist, it might be worth considering a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Devil → Satan – This article basically covers the same ground as Satan. The rational for giving it its own article is based entirely on one source Jeffrey Burton Russell's book The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (1987), which state that a devil is any "personification of evil as it is conceived in many and various cultures and religious traditions." This does not appear to be universally accepted as can be seen in pages 3–4 on the introduction to Satan: A Biography. In addition, the inclusion of other beings that are not Satan as "devils" are either based on Russell or are WP:OR. For example, for Mara, the source does not call him a "devil" or "devil-like" but merely compares a story involving him and the Buddha with the story of Jesus and Satan. Since devil is synonymous with Satan, the article should redirect there. LittleJerry (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging of References

References 1 and 11 and References 14 and 15 need to be combined.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2019

In the section called "In Sufism and mysticism", there is a grammatical error: instead of being written the word "recommended" in the right way, it is written "recommanded". Lisandro Clerici Saltalamacchia (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Special:Diff/931995894. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Science

Science Qwency mercy (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is science so important Qwency mercy (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qwency mercy: This is the talk page for the Wikipedia article about the devil, and is meant for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a means to talk to the devil (which theologians would generally regard as folly regarding questions of science, as theologians would describe science as the laws that God instituted for the natural world), nor a general discussion forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Qwency mercy (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

Iblis is a Jinn. So revered he was allowed to be in the company of Angels. Angels only obey. Jinns are given free will. Hence, the Angels obeyed Allah's command and Iblis refused. Siting he is made of Smokeless fire but Adam is made of dirt from the Earth. Wild14me4u (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You need to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic source for your suggested addition to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

devil is the best angel 103.251.82.248 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Volteer1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Jewish views

There are lots of errors, the section on Judaism does not reflect Jewish views and instead contains a long speculative theory that the devil did not exist in the first temple period, then Jews accepted the devil because it exists in the new testament, and then the rabbis rejected it again, and does not ever explain what Jewish views actually are on the devil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandor Newman (talk • contribs) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Section suggestion: "Origins" or "Reasons for Fall"

There is a section on the German Wikipedia about the "fall" of the devil, which lists reasons for the devil's fall, like "self-deification", "dispising humans" or "teaching secrets of heaven". Since such patterns are often repeated across different religions and worldviews, I suggest to make a section in which the different proposed origins of evil in the form of a devil are listed and explained. But the usual pattern for religious matters is to create a section for each religion and then explain the religious views or make a chronological order. Therefore, I first want to know the opinnions of other editors.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think such a section would get unwieldy very quickly. Rather, such information should be on individual pages for each religion's devil-figure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I expressed myself inappropriately, since I am arguing for the opposite. Not all religions have only one explanation. Some have more, but are shared by other religions. Therefore, I suggest to make a section about the reason (inter-religious) instead of a section for each religion. For example, self-deification appears in Christianity, Gnosticism-related religions (Sethianism, Catharism) and sects of Islam (Ismailism). We have the idea that the devil refuses to bow before humans in the Talmud, Christian apocrypha, Quran. When, there is the idea that the devil is simply eternal (Manichaeism, Zorastrianism). Of course we should have sections about religious views, but by listening the different views regarding the devil's origin, we could have one section, exploring this, instead of each religion repeating the same issue. I think this would actually make it less messy.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My point stands. I think such a section would be overly broad, especially since you'd have to figure out where the concept of the Devil overlaps enough to say "these two religions both have similar concepts about <aspect of their devil figure>." I just don't see it being viable.

If you want to actually write out such a section in a subpage and propose it here, go for it. I'm just not sure it'll work long-term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't exactly want to say, they overlap (this would be original research anyways). It would arrange sections according to the myth of the devil-motif instead of religion alone. Yeh, maybe it is best I present the idea. It is kinda hard to explain. I might make a proposal (I haven't done one, I just had one in mind).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Sanatan Dharma ( Hinduism)

According to holy scriptures of sanatan dharm, there is no certain mention of devil but demonic creatures and existence of evil asuras are clearly mentioned in it. Evil and terrific asuras like Ravan, Kans, Raktabeej, shumbh-nishumb and many more can be found in the scriptures. in sanatn dharm evil and good are shown to be two sides of same coin , no living race or individual are identified as evil. Sanatan dharm clearly states that actions of a living being catagorises them as good or evil, and every one who has taken birth must face the circumstances of their own actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sanatan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bangla

Mokter Hack 37.111.232.163 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The devil isn’t evil

The devil isn’t evil it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that the devil is evil 77.102.252.59 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Revelation 12:9 — "The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world ..." Peter Brown (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Expansion tag?

The article seems to me to be still incomplete, it offers various depictions over the devil in different cultures, but without any context. Although not in style, it appears slightly like a list of devil-like figures with some explanation afterwards. Does this template fit? Template:Missing information VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

lúcifer is not Latin, is it?

According to Devil § Christianity, lúcifer is Latin for "bringer of light". According to the section Latin alphabet § Classical Latin alphabet, however, there is no ú in Classical Latin, though there is a ū. Which article needs correction? Peter Brown (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

For:

"Ruprecht (German form of Robert), a common name for the Devil in Germany (see Knecht Ruprecht (Knight Robert))"

--15:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)