Good articleSatan has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 15, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 6, 2018Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 23, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Satan frequently appeared as a comic relief figure in late medieval mystery plays, in which he "frolicked, fell, and farted in the background"?
Current status: Good article

About Fringe theories and their place on wikipedia;[edit]

User:VenusFeuerFalle,

I reviewed the relevant policy and examples given on Wikipedia and did not come across a statement stating that fringe theories should never be included. It only focuses on issues such as not shaping the main axis of the article according to these theories, verifiable secondary sources, neutrality, lack of original research, and not showing the theory as more valuable than it is in the general article. Any statement that points to these theories can be criticized in these contexts.

As for what is fringe and what is not fringe; In the scientific world, many theories and even objective knowledge were initially considered fringe, and their developers and owners were even lynched. Perhaps hundreds of examples can be listed in this context, such as cosmos, biological evolution, and the theory of general relativity.

If we talk specifically about my contributions, almost all of them consist of references or summaries of informations on the pages of Wikipedia that have not been objected to by any user.NGC 628 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE covers a lot of this. We do not include everything, because that would give too much weight to minority viewpoints. Having citations does not mean they must be included in our articles.
Your statement As for what is fringe and what is not fringe is irrelevant. If Wikipedia existed in the time of Galileo, he would be a Fringe voice against the scientific consensus, and treated as such. The fact he was proven right later doesn't change that fact, and it doesn't change how we treat fringe views now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia focuses on what is already established, not on things which might gain more popularity later. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk specifically about my contribution to the Satan article. There is no reference in the introduction part of the article and the article is discussed entirely in a religious context, not a cultural one. My contribution gives 4 references and gives an explanation of the word and concept from a social science perspective. Even though I did not violate any of Wikipedia's policies, including the ones just listed, my contribution is being withdrawn accompanied by an accusation. My contribution is this;

"Satan is considered by some to be the Hebrew version of Set, who was expelled by Horus in Egyptian mythology and exiled to the desert, turning into an evil and dark figure.[1][2][3][4]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NGC 628 (talk • contribs) 02:51, January 11, 2024 (UTC)
That's because source 1 & 4 are personal web sites, which does not comply with WP:RS; and 3 is a century out of date (way too old to represent modern scholarly consensus). That leaves source 2 as the only valid cite for this. But that source makes the assertion with nothing else to back it up, which strikes me as incredibly dubious and not appropriate for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution and information. This information will definitely guide my future contributions. What I want to know is, is such a clear evaluation made for every contribution? I also understand from the following sentence "That's because source 1 & 4 are personal web sites, which does not comply with WP:RS; and 3 is a century out of date (way too old to represent modern scholarly consensus)." that in order for a source to be used, it must provide scientific consensus. Such a thing is never possible, no source can provide this. NGC 628 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a thing is never possible
Wikipedia takes a different stance. When the vast majority of research endorses a view, that is considered scientific consensus for our purposes. Consensus does not equal unanimity.
In situations like this, when dealing with historic religious material, the general view on Wikipedia is to follow the consensus of more modern scholarly works. Older historic texts tend to be working from limited resources or may have more inherent biases regarding the material, and should only be cited as "this is what was believed at the time, but now we know more."
In this case, we have a concept that may have been popular belief at one time, but has fallen out of favor among religious and historic scholars. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 10:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the consensus may not be understood by everyone as you describe. From my point of view, it is possible for the participants of a meeting to agree on a subject, but in science, consensus is against the nature of science. In addition to the different understandings of different sects when it comes to matters related to religion, religious philosophers never say the same things as the ulema who rely on traditional knowledge.NGC 628 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your beliefs, that view is incompatible with Wikipedia's policy's and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand which of my views was incompatible with which Wikipedia policy. If the statement I use in the text is "this is the general acceptance" or "this is the opinion of the majority", I must use an appropriate source, or this must be clearly stated in the source I give. Apart from this, there cannot be such an obligation for any statement, for example when I say "this issue has been understood by some as follows", general citing rules are sufficient.Therefore, when I look back, your evaluation of the sources I used may be correct for sources 1 and 4, but I cannot say the same for sources 2 and 3.NGC 628 (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't reply to the paragraphs below, so I am gopign to answer here: Please don't see this as a personal attack when I say, I see besides valuable contributations, such as about the explanation for the coins you added, there have been a lot edits about adding "the alledged original meaning of mythological figures", including your edits on the archangel Maalik in the Jahannam article. The problem is, that it was a popular theory in the 19th century, that all types of deities and spirits could be traced back to a common origin. The theory even expands to non-Biblical religions, such as the claim that the Norse Loki would be Lucifer in origin. However, such theories don't receive much support since recent academia. They are consdiered reductionistic and Euro-centric. They are not shared by scholars anymore. This is why you may find a lot of source from 19th Century and early 20th Century saying stuff like "Jesus is Horus" or "Taghut is Toth", but not in modern ones. If you think, the authors were on something back then, I would recommand to publish your own works in the fields of academia. Doing this on Wikipedia would be original research, and even if you provide a secondary source, it will be just a fringe theory. Individual people might still be convinced in that, just as many people still follow the Gnostic tradtion of Samael n Weor, despite Nag Hamadi disproving a lot of assumptions regarding early Gnostic beliefs.
Regarding your claim that "no source has scientific consensus". There is a critical approach to science (Philosophy of science), including the limits of science and academic research. Look if you find another independent source, from another author, accepting the view. For example, if you see that a large amount of scholars argue that Maalik is Moloch, you can expect this to be true. Something like this is the case with Iblis. Arabic sources often say his name derives from ablisa. A lot of Wesern sources and some Arab and Turkish source say, it derives from Greek diabolous. Then, further research was done, and new findings closed the gap between diabolous and Iblis, in the Kitab Magall. So, this theory found a lot of support. In the case of Maalik, it could also be the case that the name derives from "Malak" or simply "malik" as in "king" (malak). Further, we have no link confirming that Muslims believed Moloch to be the guardian of hell or a servant of God. If such evidence is found, it would be more popular and appear throughout different sources, thus reaching a consensus. I hope this helps. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your valuable time and explanations. The most important issue for me is to offer understandable explanations for myself and others to the religious-cultural phenomena and concepts we frequently encounter. I do this without making any insinuation that these are the only or most valid and unanimous views of the scientific community, and without attempting to destroy or devalue other explanations. Please note that the sentence I made begins with “Satan is considered by some”. Please avoid commenting on Wikipedia rules in a way that exceeds its purpose. If you see anything in my contributions that exceeds the framework I mentioned above or Wikipedia guidelines, frame the problem clearly and do not hesitate to contact me.NGC 628 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]



References

  1. ^ "History of the Devil: Ancient Egypt".
  2. ^ "Set (Egyptian God)".
  3. ^ Thus according to Kabbalistic teachings Shad represents the feminine nature in a good or legitimate sense, while Sat, or Set, becomes the type of the cast out divinity, derived by the Hebrews from Egyptian originals. Set, Seth, or Sut became not merely the opponent of the good Osiris but the incarnation of evil after his expulsion from the Egyptian pantheon, as is shown in the typology of Sothis, the Dog-star,-the "dog" which let in the universal "flood" by going to sleep when she should have been on watch. Analogous to these word-forms the opponents of the good Shaddai become, by the inversion of the first syllable only, the partly wicked Siddim, but by the final substitution of s and t for sh and d the wholly evil Set, amplified at length into Satan.Behymer, F. M. (1915). "On the Origin of the Hebrew Deity-Name El Shaddai". The Monist. 25 (2): 269–275. doi:10.5840/monist191525228. ISSN 0026-9662. JSTOR 27900533. Retrieved 5 January 2024.Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  4. ^ "In the Desert of Set - the Egyptian God Set".

Lucifer and Satan[edit]

Lucifer and Satan are not the same. They are here for our free will. You might want to check that out for your descriptions. Lucifer is said to bring light or the light bearer. Satan is the evil one. 2601:600:4380:99B0:753F:5185:E09C:1752 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence description includes the key word "sometimes" though. There is also an article for Lucifer. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil in European folklore[edit]

I think it would be interesting to mention how the Devil is depicted in European folklore and fairytales. I believe there are multiple stories about some plucky protagonist besting the Devil in some way, or about how the Devil is the reason a certain natural landmark looks the way it does. 2600:1700:8720:1050:3926:A0A1:8DF8:CD13 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are Devil in the arts and popular culture and Deals with the Devil in popular culture... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories