Talk:Satan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Satan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 15, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
November 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Different main picture?[edit]

The first image of Satan on the page is very uncharacteristic of images of Satan (he is portrayed as a handsome, nude human Adonis, as opposed to an ugly, red, horned demon). This article would probably be better if the first image on the page was a more typical portrayal of Satan.

Reverted Edits[edit]

Discussing this on the talk page as requested. The stuff that was edited in the Job section was added in 2010 by a random guy citing no sources other than what he said he had heard in Seminary. It cites no sources for what it says. It adds interpretations without sources as well - such as that Satan "is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against his decrees". The revision has no interpretation - it just states that Satan came with the angels, like the text says.

Further, what actually did have a source was just outright deleted in the reversion. I gave a source from a scholarly journal.

I also deleted the entire last paragraph, since its the epitome of Original Research - the guy is just giving his own interpretation based off of the text. An actual source is needed for such things.

Further, saying "ha-Satan" over and over is very odd. Why would you translate the "adversary" part but not the "ha-" part? Either say Satan (the English translation of the entire phrase) or say "the Adversary", but having this weird translation and a half is very poor style.

I believe my edit fixes all of these issues.

Further, as to the edit at the top, its more accurate to say he "brings" rather than "personifies" evil and temptation in the Abrahamic religions. Most followers of these see him as an actual being who is evil, not a personification of the idea of evil. So saying he "brings" it in those religions is a better fit. The "personifies" would only apply maybe to things like LeVeyan Satanism, where he is seen as a character representing an abstraction rather than an actual being. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

the-prince-of-darkness-the-first-star-mercury[edit]

Satan is the first star of the night, in the begining he has a perfect diamon, who can the light of god, the sun can light all the universe, but this prince has evil in his hearth and wants take the thone of god. All angles, stars of universe has entered in a battle and satan has turned a piece of plumbum, his piece fall in the earth, plumbum and destroy our planet, leaving diamond.

He wants live in our planet and destroy the human race. He is the prince of evil, buying all gold, the glory of god, turning his piecea, the dark ore, turning images of hell, humans, demons, animal in living, but their are all death like him.

He is corrupted all his way, wanting torture the humans, he is turing facebook in a market of a image of what kids want to turns. The humans are living in darkness, dont want the sun and other humans, all he wants is isolate the humans from other, to kill them.

He buying all humans and the creatures of this planet to him, the princ of market, the prince of bavel, egit.

But he will be destoyed by the King of The Kings, JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginingandend (talkcontribs) 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources (in this case, academic sources) for your proposed additions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and talk pages are intended for article improvement only. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Yazidis[edit]

The reference to Yazidis should be removed as it reinforces the idea that the Yazidis are devil worshippers, an allegation for which they have been persecuted for centuries.

24.23.193.187 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014[edit]

Satan's true legitimate name is Satan Helmut Wolfe and is the Father of God who is known as Samael Freyr Wolfe. 67.218.73.121 (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015[edit]

Satan was a angle but then years later he was a fallen angle because god was punishing Satan for going against the heavens laws and pruderies Anonymouskiller27 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please state your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please cite mainstream academic sources for your claims.
And on another note, it's "angel." An angle is how much space there is in a corner. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Original name[edit]

Did Satan have an original name, or did God actually name him that bc he knew he would eventually try to make himself equal to God? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that that question cannot be answered conclusively, only responded with legends and faith-based speculation, right? The question actually goes against some of the legends, which treat "ha-Satan" (the adversary) as a title rather than a specific angel. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fictional Character[edit]

Can we add this category any time soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.240.211.220 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessary. He's primarily a mythological character. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpent & Satan[edit]

"Satan is traditionally identified as the serpent who tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, as he was in Judaism", the source link doesn't seem to work for the jewishencyclopedia or it is a subscription page. Still, I'm having a tough time finding a RS that claims mainstream Judaism shares the interpretation that Satan is the serpent. Article Serpents in the Bible states in Hebrew bible that it wasn't Satan, at least in Rabbinical tradition. I've heard that Talmudic legend holds it was Adam's first wife, Lilith, which may account for frequent representations of the serpent as female/part woman. I'm not sure how popular that belief is/was and I'd be uncomfortable going WP:BOLD and throwing up a citation to that if it isn't reliable. I'm just aware that Judaism treats the Satan character differently than Christian mythology and have heard this is among the differing perspectives. Is there maybe a more accessible source for the comment regarding Judaism sharing that interpretation? Thanks. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Source link works now and I got a chance to review the citation. Looks like one line contains the statement "The serpent of Gen. iii. is identified with Satan (see Weber, l.c. pp. 218 et seq.; comp. Adam; Eve; Serpent).". The book referenced is "System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie", German text written in 1880. The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Serpent has no mention of the Satan correlation. The wiki article Devil makes strong statement that Judaism holds that snake isn't Satan, but that isn't sourced. It isn't that I think the Jewish Encyclopedia is an unreliable source or anything, but it does seem awkward that this claim isn't in the Judaism section or more widely documented in other sources. I am having a heck of a time corroborating that statement. There seems to be plenty of unreliable sources that say Jewish belief holds that the snake isn't Satan and plenty of reliable sourced Jewish interpretations of genesis that just never make a connection between the snake & Satan. Thoughts? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"God and Satan"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Satan" vs. "the satan" in the book of Job[edit]

Rebhaf (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)There is no scholarly justification whatsoever for referring to "the satan" ("the accuser" / "the adversary") as "Satan" in the book of Job. If we were quoting a passage from a mainstream translation, then this might make sense (but even some translations use "the satan" correctly), but it is incorrect to describe the adversary with a proper noun.

Hebrew scholars are in agreement (as demonstrated by the same sources referenced on the Satan Wikipedia page!) that the word includes the definite article. The adversary in the book of Job is the son of a Elohim, who was part of Yahweh's heavenly court. He was like a prosecutor. This is not a disputed point whatsoever in the circles of academia. It's even explained on the Wikipedia page!!

In the book of Job, unless you're quoting a passage (which means clearly citing the translation used), the character should be referred to as "the satan." If you use "Satan" then you are clearly favoring an ideological bias, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.

Saying that the name "Satan" is used mostly in common English is a very horrible argument. This may be the case for English-speaking Christians, but a Jew would beg to differ. This is not an issue of common language; it's a problem of bias. By writing "Satan" (outside of a quote) Wikipedia is choosing sides -- doctrine over scholarship.

It is rare to see such bias on wikipedia, and it was shocking enough to push me to create an account. Whoever reads this page, please do not allow ideological bias to win on this point. Thank you.

Rebhaf (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay first please relax with these accusations of bias. Arguments should be based on policy and reliable sources. This is the English Wikipedia so our writings need to conform to grammatical standards. I checked some dictionaries and they all list "Satan" as a proper noun. Maybe in that specific paragraph we might just need to use some other word to refer to that entity. Or do we have any (English) reliable sources that use "the satan" in that context? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Devil[edit]

The two article pretty much cover all the same information. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It seems that "Satan" comes from Hebrew, wich was loan-translated to "Diabolos" in Greek Septuagint, leading to English "Devil". Thus, the meaning seems to be the same both conceptually, etymologically and practically (the content of the articles). Merge! –St.nerol (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Satan in terms of a specific judeo-christian form is not the same as devil which may appear in a multitude of religions. They should definitely stay separated - Cadenjs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Devil might be Ahriman (Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism), Samael (primarily Judaism, also Gnosticism), Satan (who may be found in any of the Abrahamic religions), Lucifer (who is pretty much found only in Christianity), or Iblis (who is mostly found in Islam). Some sources would toss in Buddhism's Mara. Merging this article with Devil would be like merging Yahweh with God. Assuming God exists (for the purposes of this discussion), yes, Yahweh would have been one of the more notable ways how God was known to people. But the mythology and symbolism of Yahweh differs notably from Ahura Mazda, Shang Di, and so on. Likewise, while the Devil would be known as Ahriman, Satan, etc, those characters are distinct. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Devil, under "Judaism" it specifically says "In mainstream Judaism there is no concept of a devil as in mainstream Christianity or Islam. Texts make no direct link between the serpent that tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis and references to Satan in 1 Chronicles.3. and in Job..4."; which is a direct contradiction to the merging requested here. Satan is a Abrahamic figure specific to its Judeo-Christian origin. There is very little connection to the English modern 'translation', The Devil. The Devil appears in many religions as a force not a figure; and its representation is different across the world. For example, if you examine the pictures from "Satan" vs "Devil" you will notice a clear differentiation of the figure of Satan/Devil. While in Christianity the two names may be interchangeable, there is no acknowledgement of the "Devil" in Talmudic legends; thus as Ian said "Merging this article with Devil would be like merging Yahweh with God". In Satan it mentions "Satan is primarily an accuser and adversary, a decidedly malevolent entity, also called the devil, who possesses demonic qualities." without stating any sources. St. Aquinas (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

With very few responses after several months and no clear consensus to merge, I'm now going to declare this discussion closed and remove the merge notice from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Satan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Was Satan titled the "Dark Lord"[edit]

I am not referring to that in Star Wars. The Dark Lord term isn't here on religion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.89.89 (talkcontribs)

That sounds like a rather more modern title. Most historical works regarding the character would have not wanted to refer to him as a lord of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

old pictures is an...[edit]

...looks like stong man or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkiepiemlp24 (talkcontribs) 23:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

This article needs a 'see also' section to show equivalent figures from other cultures, eras and religions, such as Manannan, Manawyddan, Cernunnos, Hades, Poseidon and Tammuz.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have used the wrong template - apparently 'edit request' is not for merely an edit request, as it displays a message about an "actual or apparent conflict of interest".

I can assure you all that I am not actually Satan and therefore there is no actual or apparent conflict of interest.

If someone can fix this, I'll have one of my minions grant you a wish or something. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, generally "see also" sections are discouraged here - the logic being that if there isn't a link in the article body, the link probably isn't worth having in the tail. in this instance, as its such a large topic, and as the page really could do with some serious work - will look at your links and add on an instance by instance basis. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil. Most articles seem to have a see also section - it was certainly standard a few years ago. I guess I never got the memo about the style change!
Thanks for taking a look. Your wish is granted! --98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked at MOS:SEEALSO and don't see anything about See also sections being discouraged. Editor2020 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Not a COI request, so use {{Edit semi-protected}}. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 20:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Shucks - I was pondering the philosophical implications of a COI request about Satan - Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm... I didn't get the memo either. Some editors do misinterpret the part where if a subject is mentioned in the article, then it should not be listed in the See also section, a guidance with which I seldom agree. Why make our readers hunt back down a link within article content when it can be placed for ready usage in the SA section? In any event, since the first responder hasn't yet added any of your suggestions within the content, your edit request has been answered as  Done.  Paine  u/c 21:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The satan in Job is not the same as the "Satan" described in the rest of the article[edit]

I don't have the energy at the moment, but this section needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that the Hebrew text does not mention Satan; it mentions a divine prosecutor who serves in God's angelic council. See [1]. The figure described throughout this article is not found in the Hebrew Bible: "The satan is certainly not the devil. There's no such notion in the Hebrew Bible. The phrase, "the satan," occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible, here and in Numbers 22 and in Zechariah3." Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017[edit]

Styx (Hate)by Darodes, c. 1868.]] -> There's a [blank] space missing in line "Styx (Hate)by Darodes, c. 1868." 2003:6B:770:E268:452D:30AB:3811:86C7 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Issue with islam subject[edit]

the part in islam seems to have some issues. at first,b ecause the islamic term for Satan "shaitan" is not equal to the personified satan. Al shaitan, is the particular personified Shaitan Iblis, but refers to all, taht leads astray from God. For example, Satan is not good in Sufism, but the personified Satan Iblis, is sometimes ragarded as a true monotheist. Nevertheless schaitan in general has still a negative depiction. Maybe satan as a tempter should merge with sufi view on satan with the note in there, satan as Iblis is an example selfless worshipping and the other part about the nafs?

Furthermore the following part is distracting. "This is also used to explain why Satan managed to refuse God's order, as angels obey God's orders without questioning or complaining.[50]" The source given here, just say, those who reject iblis angelic origin state, angels do not error, while this is not universally accepted in islam. The opinion about angels and their posssible failures differ. Saying they never question something even contradict the Quran in Surah 2, there angels question the creation of Adam.

The part with "jinn" should maybe translated with it's meaning "invisible" since it contains the "species jinni", but also other invisible creatures, to avoid confusion for the reader. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)