From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cheyne link[edit]

I don't think that that Cheyne link is right. That doesn't sound like the kind of observation that would be attributed to a notable Australian music sensation. Anyone want to fix that? (unsigned, but by User:Mike Segal)

Fixed. DreamGuy 16:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

No: Belsebub[edit]

Can people stop removing this, the correct spelling of Beelzebub in Norwegian is Belsebub.

You're not supposed to add interwiki links to articles that don't exist yet. First create an article in Norwegian at no:Belsebub, then add the link to this article. —Ilmari Karonen 14:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine and all, since the article exists now. However, I would much rather appreciate it if someone adressed the problem below, and not something that was written long ago but that the author doesn't care about anymore. If you've got time to answer things like that, then you have time to answer the things below. Thank you for your attention. Satanael 16:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} — The request below hasn't been addressed yet cause it's easier and takes much less time to check interlanguage links or respond on talk pages than to sort through sources and significantly expand an article. With the level of traffic this article gets it's going to take more than two days for someone who's interested in putting that kind of work in to stumble across your request. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do find the request below far more important than what is written above, especially since the issue in question has been adressed and taken care of. Besides, with the low level of traffic here, it would be more desirable when someone first is here, to adress what is most important. And why in God's name did you restore the "ang" link, since it was incorrect from the start? Satanael 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize; I didn't realize it had been taken off before. I added it because all the other languages link to it and my Anglo-Saxon is too poor to realize it is simply a mistake across the board.
Like I said, importance doesn't always translate to speed around here. The easier things tend to get done first until a particularly interested party comes by. I'd do it, but already have too much on my plate and don't consider myself anywhere near knowledgable on the subject. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's fine, though I'm concerned about the bad continuity on the other language section for some articles. I'd edit it myself as well, but, unfortunately, I have too much on my plate as well. Perhaps I should put up a notice asking for someone to attend to the matter. I feel that the matter isn't covered enough in the info already present. I'd like it that a scholar of some sort would have been present and attended the matter at hand, unfortunately, that isn't so. The same can be said of the articles on various other demons and religious and mythical beings as well. Satanael 21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Expanding the article[edit]

I think this article can use some improvement.

Someone should check out these links to get some general information.

[ Catholic Encyclopedia]

ang:Wōdening again[edit]

The interwiki link to ang:Wōdening was automatically added back. I removed it, and also removed all the interwiki links at the Anglo-Saxon article. (They were all to various translation of Beelzebub.) I also went and removed the corresponding links back to ang:Wōdening, so hopefully that article is now completely dissociated from Beelzebub.

That question remains what, if any, English article ang:Wōdening should actually link to. As far as I can tell, it simply means "son of Woden", and is also a fairly common surname. Maybe there should be an article on it at Wodening, but currently that's a redlink. —Ilmari Karonen 18:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify- the ang:Wōdening interwiki is entirely inappropriate for this article, as you surmised. Thank you for pointing this out.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello there[edit]

I'm involved in this but I found this article while doing some RC Patrol. Please discuss your differences and not engage in edit warring or fork warring or whatever want to call it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple... Right facing images need to be on the left per Wikipedia style guides... Trivial mentions that are nonnotable for the topic need to be removed... Beeelzebub in culture is completely unnecessary as an article and uses a title that doesn't conform to what it was intended to be about anyway. I also added the caption under the image and other cleanup. Blindly reverting it all just because the editor in question feels like he owns the page or something, first without any comment and then when he did comment he simply said "it sucks" with no logical explanation and made other rude comments. He also claimed I showed no interest in the topic previously, but I've edited these kinds of articles plenty of times, and he knows it as I have commented on this very talk page previously and edited the article, and have on more than one occasion had to remove his edits to multiple articles on similar themes as being unsourced, poorly written and thoroughly unencyclopedic. All in all, Satanael is up to his old tricks again. DreamGuy 13:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When I am the only one for several weeks or months who contributes to a page more than a few minor changes, I basically own the article, just like you do the same over the articles that you primarily preside over.
and have on more than one occasion had to remove his edits to multiple articles on similar themes as being unsourced, poorly written and thoroughly unencyclopedic Yeah, right.
"Old tricks", umm, try again doc. You've hardly seen my edits at all, so don't try to be funny here, and if you are not, still. The one with "old tricks" here is you. Satanael 14:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"When I am the only one for several weeks or months who contributes to a page more than a few minor changes, I basically own the article" - I'm sorry, but that's simply nonsense. You do not own any article here, and you need to get that idea out of your head. Anyone can edit any article, and you blindly reverting the whole thing not because the version you erased wasn;t better or more encyclopedic but because it wasn't your version is completely and totally against how this site is run. DreamGuy 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishy-washy phrasing.[edit]

There are an awful lot of fluffy assertions made in this article, and especially many in the beginning. 'may', 'might', and so on. Just pointing this out- most of this subject matter is a point of ignorance in my case, so I do not feel qualified to fix the problem. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to clean it up. I can review it when it is done and ensure that no valid info gets lost. Satanael 12:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1911 "Encyclopedia Britanica" external links[edit]

I've restored the link to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on this subject, as well as the link to a reference source on the subject. Both were deleted by an editor using a false edit summary describing these as "spam".--Centauri 06:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And reverted your revert. Sorry, this habit of yours of claiming I make false edit summaries is old and shows clear harassment. Fact of the matter is that the "1911 Encyclopedia Britanica" article was clear spam by someone repurposing public domain material (material that was already incorporated into this article, I might add) for the purpose od delivering advertising for profit. Or Wikipedia:External links policy clearly states that sites that are linked to should be encyclopedic in nature and provide information that is in addition to what we already have here. These sites clearly did not meet this criteria. Your history of making contrary edits with no justification other than personal vendetta will not be allowed to continue. DreamGuy 08:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica is not encyclopedic? Reverting obvious trolling accordingly. --Centauri 08:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the Britannica link contains a number of important historical references and usages (eg by Blake) that are not "already incorporated" into the article, so the above allegation to that effect is flat out wrong. --Centauri 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I furthermore refer to WP:EL which explicitly states:
What should be linked to
  • Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
  • Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
Further to criterion 1 above, it is clear that the Britannica link should in fact be listed in the references section, rather than under external links.
It is deliberately misleading to claim that the Britannica link does not comply with WP:EL when it is in fact fully in compliance with that policy. --Centauri 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First up, and most importantly, that link is NOT an "Encyclopedia Britannica lijnk" site but someone's knockoff site using public domain info that they do not own so that they can place ads on it and make money. This is clear, calculated spam. Information from that edition of the encyclopedia can, and by policy should, be placed directly on this page if it's any good. WP:EL clearly states that sites to be avoided include "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." As the info there is not covered by copyright, we can lift all of it of any value directly to Wikipedia. It is nonencyclopedic to link to some spammer's external site that has nothing more than what we already have here or can place here. In addition, also listed under sites to avoid linking to are "Links that are added to promote a site" and "Pages with advertising unless the page is the official home page of the organization, person, or other entity that is the subject of the Wikipedia article on which the external link exists." This site clearly fails as a valid link for multiple very important reasons.

Your list of sites that should be linked to explicitly do not apply to that site, as that site was NOT used as a source for this article, and, furthermore, if we use the Encyclopedia Britannica info, we can use it straight from the ORIGINAL source (the public domain text) and NOT the spammer's site.

And then to claim further that I was "deliberately misleading" when all I did was explain policy to you, policy that you clearly did not read or understand IN THE SLIGHTEST, violates the assume good faith policy, which you have been violating on a regular basis on more than one article when you declare that my edits are deceptive when they are not in any way, shape or form deceptive accept that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow along.

Furthermore, falsely calling my actions "trolling" when I am merely following site policy is a clear violation of the no personal attacks policy.

If you'd bother familiarizing yourself with our policies and how things are done here, you would know this. Instead you have made a habit of harassing edits directly aimed at me, and continue to do so even after you have been warned by an administrator to stop. DreamGuy 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Kindly keep your comments on-topic, and refrain from posting further personal abuse. Perhaps re-familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies might be worthwhile at this juncture, as there appear to be serious deficiencies in your current levels of comprehension, to the extent that meaningful dialog with you is not possible. --Centauri 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Further to your allegation concerning WP:No personal attacks I refer you to:
There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". --Centauri 10:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As has been aptly demonstrated, you are the one who does not understand policies here (as an admin has already tried to warn you on more than one occasion on your talk page). It is also extremely ridiculous for you to try to complain about personal attacks when you yourself are the one making them.
The bottom line is directly quotes from the relevant policies proved you wrong, and you were unable to fashion any sort of response to back up your version of events and so just made more personal attacks. Please desist before admins are forced to take action against you. DreamGuy 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If you intend to continue making them, kindly post personal attacks on my talk page. It is an abuse of Wikipedia procedure for you to post them here. --Centauri 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with these links?

(unsigned, but by anon IP User:
See Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#External links. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I delinked the offending URLs so they would not exist as live links to get the linkfarming boost in Google's page ranking system. DreamGuy 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is histrionic nonsense, and I am restoring the links accordingly. People can decide for themselves whether these links are "appropriate" or not. --Centauri 21:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On further consideration it occurs to me that the difficulties DreamGuy aka Victrix has with the Britannica source material can be resolved by directly listing the references from the Britannica bibliography in the article itself. Until such time as that's done the external reference link should remain in place. --Centauri 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Random content blanking[edit]

I've restored the cultural references blanked without explanation by DreamGuy. There is no obvious reason why these references should be deleted. --Centauri 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored about a dozen cultural references blanked with the explanation it was a "redundant section", only to have one or two different references replace them. I've added the old ones to the new ones, as I don't see any reason they should've been removed. - A.J. 15:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Tenacious D[edit]

Hi there i'm new to this but was just wondering Tenaciuos D's latest album has a song called "Beelzeboss (the final showdown)" where jack and kyle have a rock off with the devil(or the devil's son maybe.... it's some form of demon thing I can't really remember). i was wondering if "beelzeboss" is a made up name or has it been used before?

Zebel miss-translated[edit]

"Zeboul might derive from a slurred pronunciation of zebûb; from 'zebel', a word used to mean 'dung' in the Targums; or from Hebrew zebûl found in 1 Kings 8.13 in the phrase bêt-zebûl"

Zebel is a word meaning rich and prosperous in ancient Hebrew texts the word is transformed to relate to dung much later in the evolution of the Hebrew language. It is used in the scripture to refer to something as rich and prosperous. This meaning coincides with much of the rest of the paragraph so I'd suggest striking out the translation to dung. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

section moved from article[edit]

This was under a section titled "Common Parlance"

Beelzebub in common parlance is often used to indicate medieval or barbaric connotations in addition to a purer version of hell eg The Sports Cafe in Picadilly is a den fit for Beelzebub.

I think if anything like this is to stay, it needs to be rewritten. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

dab page on Afd[edit]

The dab page Beelzebub (disambiguation) which redirects to Beelzebub in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. John Vandenberg 12:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate. It's the Beelzebub in popular culture page which is up for deletion; the disambig page redirects there but is not nominated. Mangojuicetalk 12:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That is correct; if Beelzebub in popular culture is deleted, Beelzebub (disambiguation) will become a redlink and will be deleted in due course if nobody overwrites the redirect with a normal dab page. I am just notifying the contributors to this article that information that was moved elsewhere is being considered for deletion. John Vandenberg 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebub and Ba'al[edit]

In the intro it says "In ancient contexts, there appears to have been little, if any, meaningful distinction between Beelzebub and the polytheistic Semitic god named Ba‘al." This sounds like it was written by someone who thinks Beelzebub is a name for Satan and that the "ancients" didn't know what we know about Satan today, confusing him with a mere local idol. I'd like to request that someone with more knowledge on the subject rewrite this sentence. Yonderboy 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There were many Ba'al's worshiped. It was a title meaning lord. A) That statement is worthless without specifying which Ba'al. B) I've never seen any archeological or linguistic evidence linking the "main" Ba'al (Hadad) to Beelzebub. C) The statement was completely un-sourced. Because of this I've completely removed the statement and it should only be re-added if the editor has a source to back it up. (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hacker reference and other unsourced, unnecessary things[edit]

Someone added a line claiming it was the handle of a hacker who "is rumored to be one of the most powerful in the world". Removed for obvious and slightly comical reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solificus (talkcontribs) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentary (removed text)[edit]

The text quoted below was removed, as it has little if anything to do with the article. It's not written in the appropriate form or style, and cites only one source. Religious articles should reference established written texts, not personal belief.

"Note: Its worth considering the fact that Lucifer (satan) was indeed cast down from heaven with 1 third of the angels (his legion). (BAD) Angels have wings too, and he though not an opposite (in power) of GOD has nevertheless set himself up against GOD thus making himself an opposing entity thus continuing the rebellious attitude which got him thrown out in the first place. He is known as the father of LIARS because he said 'I will arise, I will sit on the throne of the Most High, I will be like the Most High' he could not have done that because he was not equal with God in position but lied about his ability to do so(become like the MOST HIGH GOD) His job was to take care of the Shekina Glory of God and the Throne.He was given a voice of many instruments and Lucifer means Bearer of Light(thus all satanic things need not be black, ugly, or horrible on the contrary music, strobe lights, beauty are also very much part of satans paraphenelia as when he was thrown out he got to keep what he had and bring it with him. This was counted as rebellion and he was then cast out of heaven and continues to lie about his powers and manipulate the TRUTH . It is vulnerable human mind (like EVE in the garden vis. the truth was manipulated) who are either gullible and open to his indwelling, or who willingly accept his lies and allow him presence in their lives either out of curiosity, ignorance or carelessness, thus giving him power over them. It is also known that a human can renounce him and have him leave as the human has the power and right over his own body. By the same token God will not indwell a human unless invited [4]John 3:16, respecting this same authority (free will) a human has over their body. When Satan comes in he comes in with a gang, therefore multiple problems are seen at one time. When the Spirit of God comes in He has the power to restore any losses 100 percent. Its interesting to note that when God comes in Satan leaves with his gang. It is nevertheless for the "strong man of the house" the owner of the body concerned to stay focused on keeping the right entity within him/herself to maintain homeostasis so to speak, relapes show either faltering decision or reverting to a negative state too soon after deliverance when the body is not yet healed and strong to stay closed to Satanic reindwelling. Jesus himself says that some times a person has to be in prayer and fasting to attain such spiritual strength and tenacity (faith)"

In Modern Culture[edit]

I added an "In Modern Culture" section and put a mention of Beezebub's name occuring in Call of Cthulhu(video game). But it was removed because it was "extremely trivial". I know it is extremely trivial but I don't see a point in removing it. Other articles have these kind of modern culture sections with same kind of extremely trivial mentionings. Skele (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should go to the other articles and remove those same kinds of extremely trivial mentionings. Please see WP:ENC, and WP:NOT for more information, although a number of other policies would also apply. DreamGuy (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't George W Bush somewhere in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ba'al Zêbul?[edit]

Is there anything known about that Philistine god Ba'al Zêbul from anywhere outside the Bible? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, "Lord of the High Places" probably does not refer to heaven. Heaven is not mentioned in the Bible up to this point. The "High Places" are where the worshipers of the Ba'als made their sacrifices, so if Ba'al Zêbul does mean "Lord of the High Places", it is probably a reference to these sacrificial places rather than a reference to heaven. --Bowiki (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I remeber, that Ba'al just means "lord", and the god-name it is was very widespread at times: from Babylon up to Carthago (founded by Phoenicians) Ba'al worshipping can often be found in ancient times, often (?) ranking as highest god, while most likely deriving from some fertility-god. "zêbul" ("lofty"?) is merely a surename, like gods, especially in polytheistic cultures, sometimes have, (e.g.) to address their different functions. I think I've read, I dont know where, that the derogatory corruption from "zêbul" to "zebub" might have taken place in Babylon, during the jews so called "exile" there. most likely it even described a common occurence: because of the animals being sacrificed to Ba'al, all the blood that is involved, many flies where to be found around Ba'al-temples. So its basically mockery from one relicious cult against another. The Ba'al article on youtube has an extra section about Zêbul es well: ..if you want to search. Ba'al was not a "devil" until jewish priests made him that, to devalue other believes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cartoon History of the Universe[edit]

Larry Gonik pozits that when the Assyrians conquered the Babylonians, they invited all Ba'al worshipers to a feast, sealed them in the temple, burned it, then turned the ash heap into the barracks latrine. Thus Ba'al became Beelzebul, lord of feces. He illustrates this with a picture of a soldier making an "offering to Ba'al." Beelezebub, lord of flies would be of a kind. I imagine anyone with a copy of the Cartoon History of the Universe can look up Gonik's quotes and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources for each chapter is basically just a page full of listing various books. And he might occasionally use some less acknowledged hypotheses that make an interesting story. It would take some time to go through them all to see which would be his main source/s for each statement. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Seven ashley? What's an ashley?--RossF18 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism. I'm reverting it now. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Baʿal Zəbûb a man, a person?[edit]

Given the fact that throughout history persons (i.e. scholars or princes) used the title Ba'al - like Ba'al HaTanya, Ba'al Ha-Sulam or Ba'al ha-Turim - that Baʿal Zəbûb was infact a human being, a person? Like some great scholar, a man of renown, an ancient (anti)hero or just an evil genius of some sort who was worshipped like a god or deity; a "man-god" so to speak. Any ideas? The title Ba'al was obviously used by persons for thousands of years. Adramelech, the son of Sennacherib also used the title Ba'al, and that was nearly 3000 years ago (more like 2500 years actually). (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ba'al was a title, it meant "Lord." So while a euhemerist interpretation is possible, due to a lack of any evidence for a historical figure, it's easier to assume that Ba'al Zebub was a Hebrew parody of Canaanite deities (which there is evidence for). Also, the Adramelech you refer to was likely named for a deity, since it was really common at the time for people to name their kids after gods for good luck. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You have Lucifer and Satan mixed up in a few sentences.[edit]

Lucifer was his name in heaven before he was cast to hell to become Satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is a rather recent and not very well sourced interpretation, the names appear to have been interchangable as long as Lucifer has refered to Satan (earliest case appears to be Tertullian) and not Jesus (Rev. 22:16, Jesus called Himself the Morning Star) or Phosphorus. At no point does the Bible actually apply the title "Lucifer" to any angel, just a Babylonian King in the book of Isaiah. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Chronologically sectioned[edit]

Dejumbled article per chronology. Not sure about the Ras Shamra content, looks ORish but could be there in Saracino 1982? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Transliteration of Arabic name[edit]

Currently, on the top of the article, the Arabic is transliterated as "Ba‘al az-Zubab". This is somewhat incorrect. It should be "Ba‘al aẓ-Ẓubāb, looking at the Arabic script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There are serious issues with the Arabic itself and the Arabic transliteration. The two Arabic phrases for Beelzebub aren't even the same. One ends in an alef and the other in a lam. Someone with a deeper knowledge of Arabic seriously needs to go through the two Arabic idhaafah phrases and transliteration and correct them. I am not familiar with this phrase in Arabic and there is more than one broken plural for flies so I cannot help. Amatullah (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


What does "is a contemporary name for the devil" mean? One thing is the contemporary of another, isn't it? A thing cannot be contemporary (just that), can it? (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No, contemporary can also mean "current." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)