Talk:Satan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Archive 1

 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
A Wikipedian removed Satan from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Satan is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 14 November 2006

Contents

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because

  • The article is not stable
  • This article has a cleanup tag on it, henceforth is obviously not a GA
  • Is subject to to much vandalism
  • Is missing to many citations

False Prophet 01:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason three not a reason to remove as many articles are subject to vandalism, everything else is worriesome, endorse removal Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This article on Satan is unbalanced

I don't understand how anybody could put up such an article and present only one or two oppinions and whats more state them as facts and somehow think its a good article. If you put one oppinion then you must put the other. Otherwise you have created a biased article that doesn't represent the views of people.

I am of the oppinion that the whole article should be taken off viewing until such a time as we can come up with a balanced article.

The bible itself cannot be used as a definition alone because there are on controversial issues like this at least two interpretations.

I think in this article the atheist should be represented and also christians who do not believe in a supernatural evil being.

The Jewsih section should be shortened. Although views of Jews in different era's could be added. But even this should be brief.

The catholics and other christians that believe in a supernatural being could be larger then the others but again look at the history of the belief.

some short scriptural evidence say 2 or 3 quotes could be included from the bible.

For further information links to other articles would be beneficial.

--Rainbow Warrior 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delist

This is not a GA, there is a cleanup tag on the page, and just reading the intro, which has 5 citations neededs, I am going to delist this. False Prophet 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One more note, at least the last 250 edits have been in the last 10 days, 100 of which were either vandalism or reverting vandalism. False Prophet 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

It's good that you have added references. However, still major flaws.

Too much trivia and Wikipedia:Original research. I'd really like to see the footnotes being based on the reference literature -- such as Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (1995), I've heard that book is very well-written -- instead of personal interpretation of Genesis, Talmud, and other Biblical texts.

That is the most important concern. There are also some other points.

  • A page-long quote from the Jewish Enc. puts undue focus on that.
  • A lot of etymology should be cleaned up
  • Section "In Rabbinic literature" should be cleaned up from trivia

You can see the GA criterias here: Wikipedia:What is a good article?.

Fred-Chess 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we not ask the Dark Lord himself to write this article? Rintrah 14:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think that helps. He has to use verifiable sources though, as I described above. / Fred-Chess 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for the helpful advice I would really like to see the article get its GA status back. Its great to have some objective advice giving us points to work on. Best Regards -- Shimirel (Talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list creep in Satan in fiction and popular culture

The lists in References in films and References in television will probably grow like tumors as drive-by editors append their favorites. This should be handled differently. Perhaps just delete the section in favor of See also links.

I'd do this myself, but would rather see how others feel about this. Alternatively, does anyone feel up to replacing the list with a (non list-based) essay?

Also, the People linked with Satan list will have about 100 heavy metal singers unless the title is made more specific. — edgarde 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with first and last paragraph.
I don't favour a non-list based essay for the same reasons I don't favour a list. Drive-by editors target those too, and others will have to keep chopping the essay to keep it succinct. Essays which disguise list items too are carcinogenic. Let us hope no cancer in any affected section becomes metastatic. Rintrah 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/t/Talk%7ESatan_2225.html"