Talk:Satan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 
Portal:Religion
 Religion Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.


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 was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 14 November 2006

/Archive 1

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)

[edit] Semi-protection request?

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policies for articles protection, so here I come asking for your advice: would this article not qualify as a good candidate for semi-protection? My main concern is that while blatant vandalism is usually reverted within a few minutes, punctual bad-faith edits may escape the attention of recent changes patrollers and eventually disappear from the first page of the edits history.

For example, I noticed recently a suspicious name change from "belzeboub" to "belzeboob" by 128.61.66.118 which had managed to endure through several reverts and which I'm convinced was indeed vandalism after googling the name in its context and looking at the changelog for this IP. Orphu of Io 09:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you cannot be sérieux

I'm just sort of drifting by this article but was wondering where there'd be room for the notion that Satan(ism) is regarded by many as pretty ridiculous. This may be difficult to cite, but I was looking at for example a transcription of Devil Worship in France by A.E. Waite (1896) which sarcastically debunks reports of "Devil worship" in 19th century France

  • If a short time ago that ultimate and universal source of reference, the person of average intelligence, had been asked concerning Modern Diabolism, or the Question of Lucifer,—What it is? Who are its disciples? Where is it practised? And why?—he would have replied, possibly with some asperity: "The question of Lucifer! There is no question of Lucifer. Modern Diabolism! There is no modern Diabolism." And all the advanced people and all the strong minds would have extolled the average intelligence, whereupon the matter would have been closed hermetically....... But, this improbable development of Satanism is just what is being earnestly asserted, and the affirmations made are being taken in some quarters au grand sérieux.

You know, stuff like that. Hakluyt bean 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

However ridiculous, we should report only objective information; not set out to affirm some sentiment, and then find examples for it. Rintrah 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your concern. Maybe the question revolves a little around whether common sense is 'some sentiment' or something else. In any case, despite my concerns that it would be difficult, I cited a published book. Probably this comes under the heading criticism of topic or maybe other views. Cited naturally :) Separately, according to that citation, modern 'Satanism' has maybe clearer roots than the article suggests. I'm not sure satanism in its modern sense has been around that long. Hakluyt bean 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to bring that subject up in the Cultural Satanism article. -- Kesh 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thx for the advice, and I agree with you. Hakluyt bean 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

The nominative satan — is "nominative" there to distinguish it from genitive or ablative? "Satan", as I understand the word, does not transform with case. Rintrah 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isaiah 14:12-16
I believe that Isaiah 14:12-16 refers to the attempted taking of Jehovah's throne by the original king of Babylon, Nimrod. You will find this recorded wn in the book of Jasher chapter 9; a book refered to twice by the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18) yet thrown out by the Church.


Compare:

Jasher 9:26 - ...and whilst they were building (the tower of Babel) against the Lord God of heaven, they imagined in their hearts to war against him and to ascend into heaven.

Isaiah 14:13 - You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God;...


Net sources:

Jasher 9 sounding very similar to Isaiah 14: http://www.earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha/Jas/jasher-09.htm

Josephus' account of Nimrod's ambition: http://www.godrules.net/library/flavius/flaviusb1c4.htm

Which version of the bible do those verses come from? Rintrah 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Changes

I deleted the word nominative, as it seemed like the author really meant "proper noun"... Hebrew doesn't have a case system anyway, so it's use was inappropriate.

I also changed a little bit of the arabic to make more sense. At one point the Arabic word "Ibliis" was transliterated "Shaytan". 68.51.219.91 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

satan is cool

[edit] Forbiden Tree

After their creation, Adam and Hawwa' (حواء, Adam and Eve) dwelt in Paradise (الجنة, AlJannah), where Allah forbade them to go near the cursed tree. "The Satan" (or al-Shaitan in Arabic), tricked Adam and Hawwa' into eating from the tree. Allah then expelled both of them from Heaven and onto Earth, to wander about not as a punishment. In Islam, Allah created humans to send them on to Earth, which he created for them. He was just to see how long the humans, Adam and Hawwa could stay in heaven or paradise.

Actually Allah just want them to learn some important things about life before they can be sent to Earth. Since they’re still newly created, they have less experience. It's all about obeying Allah and to know that Satan is their real enemy. It's the basic meaning of life. They've learned this lesson and understood this after being fooled by Iblis. It's like 'a knock on the head become a lesson ahead'. As for Iblis, Allah has granted his wish to astray all human being and so He let Iblis to trick Adam and Hawwa' althought Allah can 'zap' satan into ashes before he tried to fool them. Allah actually want Iblis to know for himself how far he dares to be. So it's not about He want to see how long can human stay in the Paradise because Allah already knew how long they will stay and when came the time they are ready to be sent to earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.186.90.6 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Question

In the introduction this sentence leaps out without explanation: Ha-Satan is the accuser, a member of the divine council, who challenged the religious faith of humans, especially in the books of Job and Zechariah.

Is Ha-Satan an angel? Who employs him? What is the divine council? How does he challenge the religious faith? Some kind of transition is obviously needed. Meep 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does a so well known mythological figure only have a B-class article? Meep 10:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate reference

The scripture verses given for referencing satan being referred to as the prince of this world and the god of this world are incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.177.127 (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Satanism Section

The Satanism section seems mainly concerned with Satan and less concerned with Satan's role in said religion and I would suggest clean up to focus more on what he means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.5.145.74 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/t/Talk%7ESatan_2225.html"