Well, that exactly is it about? Can we at least remove the Islam section? I recently improved it, but the basic idea of Lucifer in Islam, was simply a comparation with Iblis, by an editor, and finally, Iblis is not Lucifer, nor did Iblis derived from Lucifer. Iblis is the same as Samael from Midrashim lore and Satanael from "Life of Adam and Eve", but not "the morning star", nor is Iblis "trying to usurp God's throne". Both figures derived from the notion of Satan, but evolved unrelated to each other. The Venus part is found in Venus mythology section and, although related to Venus, not realted to Lucifer as the Christian Devil.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that exactly is it about? Can we at least remove the Islam section? I recently improved it, but the basic idea of Lucifer in Islam, was simply a comparation with Iblis, by an editor, and finally, Iblis is not Lucifer, nor did Iblis derived from Lucifer. Iblis is the same as Samael from Midrashim lore and Satanael from "Life of Adam and Eve", but not "the morning star", nor is Iblis "trying to usurp God's throne". Both figures derived from the notion of Satan, but evolved unrelated to each other. The Venus part is found in Venus mythology section and, although related to Venus, not realted to Lucifer as the Christian Devil.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
:This is a tricky one. It sounds like Iblis does follow the basic pattern of all the Venus myths and is based on the Christian tradition of Lucifer's fall. Obviously, this would have been ''before'' the actual name "Lucifer" was applied by the KJV. But as it's a variant on the same mythological motif (the motions of the planet Venus seeming to aspire to the seat of heaven then being cast down by the Sun as a metaphor for pride before a fall), I think the argument could be made for keeping it. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] ([[User talk:Dinoguy2|talk]]) 13:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
:This is a tricky one. It sounds like Iblis does follow the basic pattern of all the Venus myths and is based on the Christian tradition of Lucifer's fall. Obviously, this would have been ''before'' the actual name "Lucifer" was applied by the KJV. But as it's a variant on the same mythological motif (the motions of the planet Venus seeming to aspire to the seat of heaven then being cast down by the Sun as a metaphor for pride before a fall), I think the argument could be made for keeping it. Maybe it should be moved to the new Fall from Heaven section as another example of the Venus myth. [[User:Dinoguy2|Dinoguy2]] ([[User talk:Dinoguy2|talk]]) 13:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Lucifer is a Latin/Roman/Italian god; article over-emphasizes later Christian usage
Lucifer started as an ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome, so likely 8th century or before) god similar to the Greek god Phosphoros (possibly syncretized as most Roman gods were), and article has too far too much emphasis on his later incorporation into Christian mythology, so I've marked it as non-neutral. I won't consider it neutral until it's focused on description of that god in pre-Christian times and mentions his addition & alteration into Christian mythology as a secondary, minor note about later changed/derived versions. Wikipedia isn't 'Christopedia;' students/scholars of pre-Christian Greece & Rome may not really care, and it's important to have the full history of Western culture in articles pertaining to it through eary BCE.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that "Lucifer started as an ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome, so likely 8th century or before) god" is mistaken. Lucifer started as a name for the actual morning star. Personification followed later. Even when personified and thereby deified, the morning star has no "ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome)" stories that could act as a basis for Christian "Lucifer mythology". This has in Isaiah's picture of a fall of the morning star a much more natural explanation – indeed an obvious explanation – than the hypothetical origin in a "Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome)" divinity. What reliable source can be cited for the idea that "Christian mythology" about Lucifer and his fall derived from ideas about a Latin/Roman/Italian god?
In any case, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia. In Latin, the basic meaning in that language would come first, but – in line with "the principle of least surprise" – in English the by far commonest meaning in that language must come first. How would people react to you if you told them: "I saw Lucifer in the sky this morning"?
The insertion of the Louvre sculpture as the leading illustration is out of place, since a merely lateral sculpture within the image is only "perhaps" a representation of Phosphoros, the morning star. I have moved it to the Mythology section. Iúil (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he did; though obscure, I've read about it from various sources, and here's one probably considered reliable (as another, top, encyclopaedia, don't recall it's citable here: ) 'Lucifer, ( Latin: Lightbearer) Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn'--Encyclopedia Britannica, 'Lucifer | classical mythology.' So, because of that, I'm restoring to the top, the Roman sculpture of Phosphorus, which in his article, states Lucifer was their name for him.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've developed a (sub)section on classical mythology covering that aspect. and put at the start a neutral image that does not refer to the usual idea of what Lucifer means nor of course does not show a sculpture in the Louvre Museum that perhaps includes (the interpretation given first place in the description) Castor and Pollux or perhaps instead (a secondary interpretation) Phosphoros and Hesperos, a sculpture, therefore, only remotely connected with this article. Iúil (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifera & Luciferus
Lucifera was a name/epithet of both Diana and Venus, one or both once cited on Wikipedia (mentioned in more detailed/obscure mythology texts.) The articles on them don't currently mention that (as most divinity pages don't list 100+ ancient epithets.) Nevertheless, as in one case being another personification of the planet, and in another case, a feminine name derived from Lucifer, both should be mentioned somewhere. I've also read 'Luciferus' was in ancient Luciferian mythology, but haven't found academic-type sources I like anymore (rather than Madame Blavatsky, while her writing used advanced academic citation style, sometimes says the same as primary and secondary, university sources, and at other times seems like imagination, said to be result of cannabis-smoking.)--dchmelik (t|c) 05:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Luciferus is not Latin. Lucifera (light-bringing) is not a noun (name) but only the feminine form of the adjective (epithet) lucifer, qualifying therefore a feminine noun, such as Diana (mythology) (a goddess identified with the moon and, Cicero says, invoked in connection with childbirth, i.e., bringing to the light), or the feminine noun pars (meaning "part", as when Lucretius calls the bright part of the moon its lucifera pars). I can find no instance of the adjective lucifera applied to Venus (mythology), but it fits very well with Venus (the planet), especially in its morning appearances. It is, to say the least, controversial to apply the adjective "ancient" to What you call Luciferian mythology. Iúil (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On October 7, Archseth submitted an edit removing the Morning Star section of the article with this summary:
The section describing lucifer as morning star is NOT an islamic tradition nor is the story of Harut and Marut told properly. The reference is part of a 1601 fictional dramatized play written by a writer who is both foreign and loosely basing on the Quran without fact checking or reflecting the true context of the holy book. This reference is invalid and cannot be accredited as "Islamic Tradition" as it is neither written by nor reflective of the faith and its scholars.
I've declined the edit under pending changes review because this change may be controversial. Please discuss the change here and form a consensus with other interested editors before making the change again. — Newslingertalk 04:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Organization
This article strikes me as somewhat disorganized due to the variety of different uses discussed, with some sections containing repeated or overlapping information. If nobody objects, I may try to organize the information based on use of the term Lucifer - i.e., discssion of it's use in reference to Jesus, in reference to Satan, in reference to other Judeo-Christian figures like john the Baptist, each in their own sub-section under a larger Judeo-Christian heading. And then similarly have sections for basic etymology and use in other mythologies like Graeco-Roman and Caanantie. As of now, I find it very difficult to use this article for comparing historical usages of the term Lucifer OR for learning how it developed into a name for the Devil, because information on both topics is scattered piecemeal throughout the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the use of lucifer for Christ (only in Latin, never, I think, in English) is worth a section. Mention of it serves only to show clearly that the word does not necessarily mean the Devil. Only for the same purpose is its use in Latin for John the Baptist or for some poet's lady love worth a mention. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that, this article is more about the name "lucifer" than about the idea behind it. Especially in the Islam section, I see the contradictions. Is it about the devil, is it about the morning star? (in Islam they are both two seperate figures). If we focus on "lucifer the devil in Christianity", I would suggest to merge it with "Devil in Christianity", giving a section about the development of Lucifer and removing the Islam section (or transfering it to the corresponding articles (Iblis and Venus in Middle Eastern Tradition or something the like)). The Bogomilism could be a seperate section within the "Devil in Christianity" article, especially it already seems to encompass Catharism (who got some of their ideas from Bogomilism). It is only in Christianity, there the Devil was equalized with "the Morning Star".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked on this now a bit I see your point. I'm wondering if maybe the confusion of this article is that it's trying to force several topics with the same name into one topic. Lucifer seems to be primarily two things - first, a Latin word meaning light-bringer or shining one or what have you. Second, by application of this, a name for the planet Venus in Ancient Rome, which was (only occasionally) personified in poetic form and never really thought to be a god. Third, a name for the Devil, based on what seems (by consensus of scholarship) to be a mistranslated phrase (or at least a poor translation choice) in the KJV Bible.
I recommend we go a step farther and make this a disambiguation page. The current Judaism, Christianity, Latin, and part of the Islam section should be merged into the article on Satan and/or Devil in Christianity, since that's really what they refer to, with a note on the DAB page that Lucifer can be a name for Satan in some religious traditions. The Canaanite section also belongs in Satan because it's talking about the origin of the "fallen angel" motif and its link to the apparent motions of the planet Venus. The Classical Mythology section seems like it should be its own article, something like "Venus (planet) in Mythology", maybe with some of the Canaanite material added (and it would need a significant section on Babylonian/Sumerian myth, e.g. from Inanna) and maybe merging with Phosphoros. We could put the Islamic morning star material here too. I would suggest merging all the morning star material into Morning Star but that is already a disambiguation page. Finally, we need a page for the modern occult/neopagan uses of the term Lucifer in reference to a being or deity distinct (at least somewhat) from Satan. What do you think? Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea, to makes this a disambiguation page. If we merge it with "Satan", we should make clear the parts we move are well soures, since the "Satan" article is currently GA and I don't want to endager its status. For example, the Islam-section consits of merely three things, that are basically already mentioned in both the "Satan" article and its Main-article "Iblis". Only the notion of Iblis in relation to "light" is something new, but I am going to add a section in "Iblis" including this anyway. Thus the Islam-section about "the Devil" could be deleted entirely (the only relation between Iblis and Lucifer is their comparation, we could simply add "Iblis" in the "See also"-section of "Devil Christiantiy". The Canaanite section could fit into the "Historical development"-"Hebrew Bible" section of the Satan-article. The idea for a new "lucifer as "lightbringing-deity" sounds good, but I am undecided wether this can be explored without any link to the Christian Devil. It seems to me, that the "Lucifer distinct from Satan" is, even not seen as Satan, related to the Christian Devil or a new/re-interpretation of the Christian Lucifer. They both root directly in the misinterpretation of this myth. I would suggest it could also be a sub-section for "Devil in Christianity" called "protest interpretations" or "Western occultism", since in some writings (such as those of the Satanic Bible) Lucifer is intented to be a merely protest-figure, clearly intented to invert the Christian Devil (Such traces can also be found in Occultism, there "Jehova is "Satan" and Lucifer/Christian Devil the liberator). I think such as section would fit well to a Bogomilism-part, again the Devil is rooted in Christian tradition, but it is not the Devil of "mainstream-Christianity". Thus, I suggest, the "Christian Devil" would contain a section for "The Devil directly related to Christian traditions but differing incertain viewpoints such as occultism, bogolimism or Neo-Paganism, but I am uncertain wether or not, this idea is too daring. Otherwise, I think "Lucifer the liberator" could also have its own article with being mentioned in the Christian Devil article in "see also" and mentioned in the disambiguation page.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. As far as the Occultism stuff I was thinking more of Lucifer in Aradia and other such things rather than Crowley or LeVey type Satanism or Luciferianism, but that could probably go in other articles and just link to the relevant topics. I started creating a page for Venus in culture to consolidate historical interpretations of the planet and its related myths. Once we copy over the relevant material to Satan and/or Devil in Christianity, someone can turn this current page into a DAB. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a "split-tag" would be necessary? I mean, probably there are other authorswho are not aware of our current discussing. I would think, since the basic idea takes ground, we should tag it with "splitting" or something the like and wait a day, before we merge the concent of this article with others. Regarding Aradia, I was not aware of them. Although I am interested in occulitism, my knowledge is merely of European and Oriental occultism. I do not know much about Lucifer in Aradia (heard about Aradia the first time). Yes, in the article "Venus in culture" we could take much content of the current article. We could even shorten the stuff we would take to "Satan" (just in case, it would interfere with the current build) and ust take over that is really necessary. It is also an article (Venus in culture), there the Islamic narrative about "Zohrah" could go (although I would suggest to rewrite it, if you want, I would try to do this, since I was also the one, who added this myth here in the first place). If there is no objecting by other users, I think we can copy all this and turn it DAB, yes.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I saw, the splittag would even be displaced, since it is for articles with one certain content that can be split into two, but in our case it is one article about a name (that is not even in accordance with the wikipedia standarts) instead of a topic sorting into the corresponding articles.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea how many dab fixes you just created? Almost 650. Onel5969TT me 22:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone doesn't know what a "dab fix" is, please see WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says what you are supposed to do before changing an article into a disambiguation page. Also, WP:MOSDAB discusses how disambiguation pages should be formatted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dinoguy2, your edit just doesn't work. There already is a disambiguation page for Lucifer. Yours is a duplication, and not an improvement. And you have simply deleted, not moved, much of the information. Where now is the sourced information on Isaiah 14:12? Is that not worth preserving? It seems to be the principal part of the article we are discussing. If you prefer, change the name of this article to make clear what is its main theme, and then move elsewhere (not necessarily delete) anything extraneous to that main theme. I am undoing your edit, at least provisionally, so that it can be discussed before (if I am wrong) becoming definitive. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it seems like the best course of action is what I originally suggested, that we just organize this page in a way that makes sense. What should the topic of this page be? As of now it seems to cover a mishmash of etymology of the Latin word “Lucifer”, material related to the name “Lucifer” as the ancient name for Venus, the issue of mistranslation in Isaiah and subsequent folklore about the devil (all the Isaiah material is already covered in other articles by the way, including Satan, Devil in Christianity, and now Venus in culture), Lucifer as used in various occult traditions, plus some material about the Satan in Islam that has nothing to do with the name Lucifer. If we are not going to merge this with the dab page, then it should probably be renamed to “Lucifer (religion)” or something and leave the stuff about the planet and general stuff about the devil out of it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that exactly is it about? Can we at least remove the Islam section? I recently improved it, but the basic idea of Lucifer in Islam, was simply a comparation with Iblis, by an editor, and finally, Iblis is not Lucifer, nor did Iblis derived from Lucifer. Iblis is the same as Samael from Midrashim lore and Satanael from "Life of Adam and Eve", but not "the morning star", nor is Iblis "trying to usurp God's throne". Both figures derived from the notion of Satan, but evolved unrelated to each other. The Venus part is found in Venus mythology section and, although related to Venus, not realted to Lucifer as the Christian Devil.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one. It sounds like Iblis does follow the basic pattern of all the Venus myths and is based on the Christian tradition of Lucifer's fall. Obviously, this would have been before the actual name "Lucifer" was applied by the KJV. But as it's a variant on the same mythological motif (the motions of the planet Venus seeming to aspire to the seat of heaven then being cast down by the Sun as a metaphor for pride before a fall), I think the argument could be made for keeping it. Maybe it should be moved to the new Fall from Heaven section as another example of the Venus myth. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]