Talk:Lucifer/Archive 2

Iblis here?
Is there anywhere any reason to believe that moslems have done the same confusion between Lucifer/"Morning Star" and Satan like the christians have? If so, some citation is needed to support that additional confusion, otherwise the section "Islamic point of view" doesn't belong to here. The Lucifer/Satan confusion is becoming an obsolete one as much as the confusion between Mary Magdalene with Mary of Betany, and if Islam doesn't share the former one, the section shouldn't be here. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical significance here?
This article starts to deal with the confusion between Lucifer/"Morning Star" and Satan, then unexpectedly claiming some astronomical meaning of Lucifer, i.e. the true and original meaning of "Lucifer". The article layout is extremely confusing, and unworthy an encyclopedia. The intro deals with the Lucifer/Satan confusion, so the article is structured as being written around Lucifer (christian legend). The real article Lucifer should probably be a disambiguation page. The text here that regards this christian legend stuff could remain here, while this article is moved to this new name. The material that doesn't belong to the christian legend, the Iblis stuff, and the Astronomical stuff, should instead be moved to Lucifer (disambiguation). The article name, as it now is, is just so very wrong that it makes a lot of confusion. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What else does "Lucifer" mean in English but the Lucifer/Satan idea? In Latin the word Lucifer means the Morning Star, but not in everyday English.  The Latin Wikipedia could well dedicate a whole article principally to astronomical knowledge and legends about the Morning Star and could title the article "Lucifer", but the corresponding article in the English Wikipedia would have to be titled "Morning Star".  The English article "Lucifer" must be principally about the figure that in English is known by that name.  However, the English article must also give an explanation of how this name became attached to the figure, and so cannot avoid speaking, in secondary fashion, about the legend that seems to underly the Morning Star image in Isaiah 14:12, and how, because in this passage the word "הילל" was translated into Latin as "Lucifer", it gave rise to the use of this name for the Lucifer/Satan figure.  Lima (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a question of proportion (one reason I find the long collection of Latin sources to be otiose; their content could easily be summed up in a paragraph, with a footnote linking to relevant passages). However, the star business is useful because literature and the visual arts continued to draw on it in referring to or identifying Lucifer; see, for instance, the star-tipped sceptre of Le génie du mal; working on that article is how I came to have an interest in the question. I agree that the current Lucifer article lacks cohesion, proportion, and good order. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy
Have read many stories about Lucifer, but not much about angels and their wills. A prediction/theory could be that a person could possibly lose part of their will; angels don't have as much liberty to do things?75.250.167.113 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation and babble
"The New Testament shows a high development of demonology. In consonance with the Gospels' belief in the lower orders of society, the devil and his realm are regarded as an entire ubiquitousness in all the events of daily life. "

The first sentence is simply misinformed: there is precious little "demonology" in the NT, save in Revelations. The point of fact that needs stressing is that demonology is a post-NT structure that has developed over the centuries.

The flaming second sentence can scarcely be parsed, let alone seriously criticised. This subject continues to attract a fringe element. --Wetman (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gustave Dore's Painting at the top
That is not Satan's fall as is captioned--that is Satan going to the Earth after leaving Hell. Everybody gets this one wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batjanus (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This anonymous contributor is right. What is illustrated is Book III, lines 739-742.  Lima (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect?
I wonder if this page should be semi-protected, since it attracts so many petty vandalisms (by schoolchildren?). Lima (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest banning 198.237.17.15*, but there's a bunch of IP vandals, so I second semi-protection. *I dunno about every school in the world, but with a few exceptions, most of those currently involved with education that I've ever heard of believe wikipedia is a little less reliable than Uncyclopedia.  I don't think the school is going to mind if we ban their IP address from editting. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tudor rose (Occult beliefs)
"In this modern occult teaching, an obvious appropriation of Christian soteriology, it is stated that it is Lucifer's destiny to incarnate in human form at certain key times in world history as a savior and redeemer for humanity. A symbol for this process is the Tudor Rose. The Tudor Rose can be red, representing Lucifer, or white, representing Lilith."

The Tudor Rose is always depicted as red and white, seeing as the emblem was adopted after the War of the Roses and symbolizes the unification of the Houses of York and Lancaster. It is therefore nonsensical to say that a red Tudor rose = Lucifer and a white Tudor rose = Lilith. No citation is currently given for this information, though when the paragraph containing this text was added to the page 12:27, 16 April 2007, the paragraph ends with parentheses containing the title and authors of a book (The Pillars of Tubal Cain by Nigel Jackson and Michael Howard). The only references that I found to a relationship between the Tudor Rose and Lucifer are unreliable sources that use the exact wording found here.

And then there is the matter of the phrase "obvious appropriation." — Pastanecklace (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted it since it was unsourced. Although not the reason for deletion, if Jackson and Howard were the sources of that belief, they seriously need a basic western history lesson. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A confusing article, way off topic
Hi everyone. Someone told me about this article, and it seems to me to be very unwikipedian. Lucifer simply means, well, you know from the above discussions. He was not Satan, and it was only later that specific tacticians within religious structures tried to take one sentence and totally distort its meaning. Hence, the article reflects that mindset, even though wikipedia should be about cutting through that web and stating the facts. So, in particular for now, what is that picture about, up front, which names the topic of the article, Lucifer, as Satan? I can call George W Bush Satan, and probably have in the past, or anyone, but that doesn't mean that if I stuck a picture of Satan falling from Heaven (which has nothing to do with old Lucifer, much maligned and kicked-about here and elsewhere) it would be kept up for more than five minutes. On this one point, which relates to many points and word usage within the article, how does the photo (let alone the misinformation on the page) still get to remain? Aleister Wilson (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reread the article from a fresh perspective. It doesn't say that Lucifer is absolutely certainly Satan, it says that it is a traditional interpretation, but it doesn't say that it is the correct one.  Removing that information would not be appropriate for wikipedia, since it would be censorship.  What would be appropriate is to remove the quotes from "a Babylonian king" and "man" in the Satan as Lucifer section and point out in the intro that (in its original context) Helel was a title for Babylonian king.  I went on ahead and did that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian., and I will reread the article from this and other perspectives, and thanks. But once again, the top graphic and the caption, it says "Satan", I don't know what more bias can be shown. Again, it's as if I went ahead and put that picture on the George W. Bush article, labeled it "Satan" and expected it to stay more than five minutes. I won't try it, because I would appropriately be flagged for vandalism. Why is it OK here? Thanks again, and I'll get back with other specifics when time permits for a good read of the page. Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture caption (now) goes on to say "who in Milton's Paradise Lost is also called Lucifer." If we wrote about Bush being Satan and got famous for it, in a few hundred years it should be OK to add a picture of him to the Satan article (which is why we've got a picture of Nero in the preterist Beast article).  I agree that Lucifer isn't Satan, but that's what people have kept on writing about, so that view has the most sources.  I've got an idea though...  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How about removing or moving the picture of Satan?
Any reason why we should keep it? Satan is only refered to as Lucifer three times in Milton's whole bloody epic, and the article doesn't say that Lucifer is most certainly positively definately specifically Satan. If anyone can come up with a good reason for keeping it, perhaps we could move it to the "Lucifer as Satan" section, and perhaps put some random picture of a Babylonian king's monument in another part, and maybe a picture of Jesus in the "Mentions of the Morning Star in the Bible" section? Anyone that would revert such edits, now's the time to tell us why it shouldn't be done. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there even one person who, on looking up the article on "Lucifer", will fail to be surprised to find it illustrated by a picture not of Satan but of Jesus Christ and of a monument of some king of Babylon who almost certainly is not the king referred to in Isaiah? Lima (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we put a picture of Jesus in the "Mentions of the Morning Star in the Bible" section, it would be a reason to read that section, which points out that in Revelation Lucifer/Morning Star refers to Jesus. I am not saying Satan cannot be pictured here or that we should start the article with a picture of Jesus, but it's just that the article does point out that Lucifer Biblically refers to a Babylonian tyrant in Isaiah and Jesus in Revelation, and that it was only later writers that refer to Lucifer as Satan.  Surprise isn't a bad thing.  If they want to complain, they would have to read the article, which would give validation for those pictures being present.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the article not say that in Christian mythology Lucifer and Satan are identified? And isn't this the usual meaning of "Lucifer" in English? (This is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin one.)  Lima (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, Lucifer is not really biblically the king of Babylon in question. Only King-James-Version-ally (and in a few other old English translations) is "Lucifer" the king of Babylon.  In more modern English translations it is Day-Star (or the like) that is biblically (?) the king.  You may well say that this is a quibble.  But it is no quibble to say that English-biblically Jesus is never identified with Lucifer: he is only called "the Morning Star" (or the like).  The word "Lucifer" does not appear even once in  the Book of Revelation.  Lima (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All I am really saying is that, because of the usual understanding of the English word "Lucifer", a picture of Lucifer-Satan should have first place in this English-language article. Lima (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Biblical definitions would put a picture of Jesus as the main picture. The word definition would put a photo of the planet Venus as the first picture. But the picture posted on the article (actually the first two) have nothing to do with Lucifer but have to do with a book, Paradise Lost, which already has a wiki article and at best should rate a section on this page. In the wiki article of Paradise Lost it's pointed out that Satan is mentioned dozens of times, but the name Lucifer only three. The picture should, I believe, not only be taken off the top of the page, but editors should pick one of the two first pictures, decide which one to keep, and place it much further down the article. One reason wiki is here is to provide a platform for removing misinformation from society. A lovely reason to exist and a lovely site to provide such a grand healing for civilization. Aleister Wilson (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no Biblical definition of Jesus as Lucifer, or of Lucifer as Jesus. In the language we are using, the word "Lucifer" is rarely if ever used (except in poetry) even of the morning appearances of Venus, never of the planet as such. ("Venus" is not just a modern name for the planet: it is the regular ancient Latin name for the planet that the Greeks called and still call Aphrodite.) The normal meaning of "Lucifer" is what the article is about. If the present top image is thought unsuitable, there are others to choose from in the gallery of images of Lucifer that I have added. I have removed some misinformation from the article. More could be removed, but that can wait. Lima (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for some clarity as to the article. There are eight mentions in the Bible of lucifer, all but one (and that in one translation, by Jerome, see section below) positive or neutral. There is no 'normal' meaning of lucifer except that created by individuals, and the main reason the word is not used more often in English is that the bias against it (How many people named Hitler does the normal person know?) has scared people away from using its real 'normal' usage--that of the morning star, Venus, or, biblically, Jesus or David depending on the translation and emphasis. Wikipedia is not about, as I understand it, holding up false data, misinformation, and selective editing for pov. As for the picture, all of the ones newly added portray scenes from books, books which have their own articles on Wikipedia, which may be the appropriate place to add much of the data on the page under discussion. Aleister Wilson (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
I think calling the traditional Christian interpretation a misunderstanding isn't particularly NPOV. Also, the star which falls from the sky is also mentioned in Revelation (IIRC), although maybe not explicity called Lucifer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.250.xxx (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2001 (UTC)
 * It is a historical misunderstanding, due to misunderstanding translations.
 * Something is translated correctly but narrowly - someone reads the narrow translation and misinterpret it when translating to another language. The same thing happen if you tell someone a story, and they tell it on.  If I translate a text from norwegian into english, and then someone else translates it from english to, say, spanish .. then the spanish translation wouldn't reflect the norwegian text as good as the english one, as information WILL have been lost along the way.
 * Of course, you could always rewrite it into "Some people think that this is based on a Christian misunderstanding", however I don't think you'll find anyone presented with the facts arguing for the medieval view. :)
 * --arcade 11:32, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * I think you are ignoring a long tradition within Christianity of giving prophecies multiple interpretations. In particular, many prophecies dealing with no longer relevant events were later reinterpreted to have broader, more universal significance. Often current events and the end of the world were merged into one, making it very difficult to determine what is talking about today and what is talking about the end of the world (see, for example, the passage in Matthew concerning the fall of Jerusalem). Maybe this kind of expansion was illegitimate, maybe it was not, but it was not unknown in ancient Judaism or Christianity, nor medieveal or modern Christianity for that matter. (Witness the pesher method of interpretation used by Qumran, or typology). So just because the passage originally referred to the Babylonian King, doesn't mean that Christians like Jerome interpreted it as solely doing so -- they may well have interpreted it as also talking about a more cosmic event -- the fall of Satan from heaven.
 * And even if the original text is talking about the king of Babylon, it is quite possibly using Venus as an allegory for the king. In which case, the later interpretation of it is perfectly legitimate. Alternatively, if they intepreted it as reffering to the fall of Satan, the translation may have been influenced by an independent tradition that Satan was the morning star. And look at Revelation, where you will find several references to falling stars, one of which may be Satan (I am no expert at interpreting Revelations) -- which might indicate a prior existence of a tradition to the effect that Satan is the morning star fallen from the heavens.
 * Anyway, to summarise -- there are other possible explanations than it being an inaccurate translation. It might be a perfectly accurate translation, according to the religious presuppositions of the translators. -- SJK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.250.xxx (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Also on the topic of translation and religious 'opinion'. Please don't think that the Latin translators of scripture were simple-minded or unconnected to a larger tradition.  Jerome was not only working out of Greek and Hebrew scripture texts, but had access to contemporary (5th C. A.D.) Jews and their opinions.  He read commentaries written by and for Rabbinic Jews on their own texts.  That background may or may not (I have no immediate idea) have influenced this translation, but it must be taken into consideration;  not do contemporary scholars think it's a mistranslation of the Hebrew, but what did 5th century Jews say the text meant.  --MichaelTinkler 12:16, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * You both raise interesting points.
 * I'm not sure on how to formulate the article, I've done a bit searching, and found the following, quite interesting article on it:
 * http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml (which I based my entry quite a bit on)
 * http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/LuciferandSatan.html
 * http://web2.iadfw.net/~elo/news/venus.html
 * Any recomendations on how to type this out, to reflect it all from a NPOV ?
 * --arcade 12:30, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to start by explaining that the websites you're drawing on are extremely tricky. I don't know that any of the people on the first one address the issue that I raised, for instance. They're all talking about 'just translating the Hebrew', as though there wasn't any discussion about what the words signified as well as what they meant. The Web is not always the best place to find information about difficult topics. --MichaelTinkler 12:38, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Uhm, no. The first one does, which I based my initial expanding of the Lucifer article on.  The two last are explaning it quite a bit better.  Still reading other pages, though.
 * Also, I expect that people that know more about it, sure will add to the article. :)
 * --arcade 12:56, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * The second link cites one source after 1908. And the site is an apologetic site ditancing Freemasonry from accusations of Satanism - not the kind of place to find a dispassionate, scholarly discussion of Rabbinic Judaism and its interpretations of Hebrew.  I'm still not impressed. --MichaelTinkler 13:03, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I know it's bad form to feel as angry as I do right now, Dr. Tinkler, but I'll try to hold back my ready-to-erupt bile and talk reasonably about the GLBC page which you refer to as "an apologetic site ditancing [sic] Freemasonry from accusations of Satanism."  First, the site is not an apology, at least as defined by the dictionary I checked.  It is not an excuse or explanation for behaviour, but rather shows people that the supposed behaviour never existed in the first place.  You seem to have a distinct hatred for any work of scholarship related in any way to esotericism.  Admittedly, there have been quite a few of these works in the past which have been poorly done.  I'll concede "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," and "The Hiram Key," for example.  You're not really answering any argument whatsoever when you claim that a GLBC page about anti-masonry is "not the kind of place to find a dispassionate, scholarly discussion..." why not?  Or are you using rhetoric in the absence of facts to get across an argument you "know" to be right?  That sounds a lot like the academic sin of which you claim the GLBC is guilty.
 * I have no qualms whatsoever about (what appears to me) your enthusiastically-held Catholicism. You have the right to worship whatever Supreme Being you wish in whatever fashion you wish.  Yet, on the Freemasonry/Talk page, you presented a letter from the very anti-masonic and frankly libelous Cardinal Law as a resource for information on Freemasonry.  Which way should we have it, Dr. Tinkler?  Shall we accept anyone's opinion, based only on their ability to back up that opinion with evidence (a position I would be glad to agree with), or shall we accept only the word of "experts" when dealing with their field?  You can't have it both ways.  Or perhaps you think we should accept the word of Catholics, but not people of other faiths?
 * Since I have started contributing what I can to Wikipedia, I have had nothing but the utmost respect for your dedication to your field, although I have argued with you about a number of points... in many cases, you have been correct, and I incorrect. But in this case, it seems to me that your bias has gone too far, and that you have lost that passion for understanding that no doubt informs both our lives.  I hope that I have merely misinterpreted what you have meant, because I shudder to think that an educated individual could be as bigoted as you appear to be. --User:Alex Kennedy post actually made by Conversion script (talk ;; contrib) on 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

And the third link! My gosh! Go to the top-page of that one! . His 'upcoming articles' list promises:
 * Elvis and Jesus Spotted in Las Vegas Casino,
 * God Fixes Leaking Toilet,
 * Rain Occurs After Four Years of Prayer,
 * Burned Out Lightbulb Proof of God, and
 * Holy Ghost Ate Santa's Cookies.

This is not the kind of thing you want to rely on! Now this is not to say that this person is incapable of presenting facts, but his entire purpose makes him un-useful for an encyclopedia! Remember, NPOV. --MichaelTinkler 13:09, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of difference between what he presents as 'stories' and his editorials.
 * But as I've already said, I've expanded the original twoline article with more information. _I_ think I've done it from a NPOV, albeit I'm sure people with more knowledge about it should expand upon it.
 * I could always try to edit it a bit more. :)
 * --arcade 13:13, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * A better explanation provided by Yet Anoter Link. :-)
 * http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm
 * Quite a good article, from what I can see.
 * --arcade 13:41, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Before I even click on it, arcade, I note that they're Theosophists. Since that ipso facto identifies them as interested in the esoteric side of things, it undercuts anything they have to say about ancient texts - Madame Blavatsky claimed all kinds of things, including lots and lots of 'lost knowledge'.  Again, this does not mean that they are incapable of getting something right, but they have predilecitons for 'underground' interpretations.  There are mainstream scholarly opinions on this material.  You are unlikely to find them on the web. Sorry to sound so pedantic. --MichaelTinkler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.24.xxx (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

And I get the feeling i'm sounding quite luserish. :-)

Ahwell, if I can't find the material on the web, I think i'll let the current version stay - and if someone with better knowledge about it comes along, they're sure to edit it to reflect things better.

I did however find a quite amusing site rejecting the Theosophist view .. with Michael Drosnin's "Bible Codes". I didn't know wheter I should laugh or cry .. but ohwell :)

--arcade 14:28, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * The article seems slanted against a common Christian view that Lucifer is Satan, God's enemy, someone to be thwarted by doing good deeds rather than to be worshiped. But since I adhere to that Christian view, I might be reading bias where NPOV really is.
 * Some theological commentators have been challenged traditional (or common) interpretations of Bible verses, pointing to updated translations. The issue of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics?) is crucial to innumerable points of contention, such as whether homosexuality is sinful.
 * Can we rewrite the article to reflect all points of view with equal weight?
 * --Ed Poor


 * I agree, Ed, the current article is (a) a mess and (b) tendentious. Join in. --MichaelTinkler 15:18, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * 1. Thanks for moving my comment, which I inadvertently put in the article.
 * 2. I think a simple re-ordering would do it. First, give the traditional pov, explaining who translated/interpreted it. Then, give the reasons for the dispute and mention the Voodoo deity thing.
 * --Ed Poor 15:58, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * The new article is much better than what I managed. :) Now, could someone please point out the errors I made, in my attempt at NPOV, so that I can improve what I write in the future?
 * --arcade 16:01, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

Yeah, please, a whole article specifically geared to NOPV "sinners" like myself who want to "repent" of their bias and have valid points to make. We are the Jugglers, the sophisticated Men of Tomorrow who repudiate neutrality yet seek to attain the NOPV. (See ha, ha, only serious in the Hacker's dictionary if you think I'm just being sarcastic.) --Ed Poor 16:44, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Btw, after reading through the lucifer article again, I find it a tad tempting to comment on the Rev 12:5 introduction, as that cannot point to Is 14:12, as 14:12 is about a _specific king_, about a man. (See verse 16). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcade (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * You're right, I just threw that in. It probably belongs in Christian Views of Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2001 (UTC)


 * Hmm, a couple more links, just to add'em in:
 * http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html
 * http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/faq/r&r9810q.htm
 * Both seems to be christian resources.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcade (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 December 2001 (UTC)


 * From my understanding Lucifer/Ha-Satan (the Accuser), was identified by early rabbinical texts; as the one who stood before Elohim, and seeing the light under His throne asked, "Who is that light under your throne?" Elohim responds, "This is the chosen one who will bruise your head." Lucifer or the references of the "evil one" is many. From being the leader of the rebellion of the angels in Heaven, to the tempter in book of Genesis to a reference as the 'King of Tyre' (see Ezek. 28:12). This character is often found throughout scripture, Lucifer is made mention as a beast in Rev. but interestingly enough that the nephilim (see Gen 6:4)  where characterized as the same.  Could it be so that Lucifer started a rebellion and established his own bloodline? I believe this to be true.  One can learn to read hebrew and greek, but ultimately not all the answers are found in the text itself.  One must also understand the culture of the early believers. :--BrianB
 * As far as I know, no early rabbinical texts spoke of Lucifer. Satan, yes, but not Lucifer.   Esoglou (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on the Freemason rumor
I really don't understand this. There is an entire section on the page relating a false story, a lie and fabrication, acknowledged within the section that it is a lie, about Freemasons worshipping Lucifer. Some rumors are important, like the rumor that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because they are a prime pivot point in the timeline of a subject. But just to plop a random rumor onto a page to justify a pov ("Paris Hilton a male!" says the Weekly World News) is not, IMHO, justified. Aleister Wilson (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the reason that it is included is to discourage the paranoid crazies from vandalizing the article with "Freemasons are devil-worshippers!" Unfortunately, there are circles that write way too much about Freemasons doing all kinds of stuff besides amateur acting, some charity work, and pancake suppers; and many of the folks in those circles will quote early Taxil stuff and ignore the part about "hey, yeah, I was just yanking the Catholic church's leg."  I'd say leave this part alone because (at least for me) it has been useful in letting some people know that the freemasons are actually rather mundane.  I did see some bits in there though that were not quite as conclusive in the "Taxil was full of it" department, but I worked on that some.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For now I've retitled the section "The Taxil Hoax: Lucifer's alleged. . .etc" but I think it would be more wikipedian to remove the section. It's a false story, a purposeful mockery on Taxil's part, a Glenn-Beck-like misinformational story. If this can be included then what can't be? A fair article would cut through all the misinformation, would remove every rumor no matter how old, and would take the falsity out of any of the data presented in the article. (By the way, since I mentioned Glenn Beck and this example may be relevant, his page does not discuss or include the well-known fabricated rumor which was acknowledged to be a falsity created in order to discredit and mock him.) Aleister Wilson (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vulgate translation used almost exclusively in the article, pov question
St. Jerome wrote the Vulgate translation, the one and only translation of the bible which uses the word 'lucifer' in a negative sense (and even then it pertains to a Babalonian King and not to Satan). Yet this article quotes from Vulgate over and over again, and even tries to isolate Bible quotes within the article to a link to Vulgate and not to all translations of the passages. This has pov written all over it, turned it over, and written all over it again. Edits opening up the verses to all translations have been reversed again, to just Jerome's Vulgate. Lucifer is not Satan, it is a name for a planet, for God's sake, and to twist data in a couple of brief mentions in a couple of fiction books and one translation of one passage in the Bible has given the name strength through the very process of continuing this misinformation. Again, Wikipedia, as I understand it, is not about that, and this article may be one of the main examples of it. Should we maybe ask for mediation? Aleister Wilson (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wrong here, King James also has the "O Lucifer" lament, which actually is just mocking the King who is playing at dictatorship (back to George W. Bush again. . .), telling him that he's going to be, ah, roughly indicted someday, and will not look good in the history books (W.?). There actually is nothing about Satan or the devil in the passage at all, just a dissing of the Babalonian King. IMHO, if St. Jerome had known that novelists and poets would use his mocking verse, twist it around to a different meaning, and for a long time label what he thought was just a pretty bright Star as the Devil, he probably would have corrected the user. In fact, in his day, many religious Christians carried the name Lucifer proudly, and St. Jerome was probably very familiar with the postive connotations of the name when he used it poetically to denounce one human being, who soon fell in shame, no, wait, I'm back to Bush again. Aleister Wilson (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Rollback.
I removed a substantial amount of content added by User:24.21.90.170 accidentally when rolling back, but as it was unsourced and seemed irrelevant, I haven't replaced it only to remove it. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"King of Babylon"
Isaiah 14:4 expressly applies the taunting naming as Morning Star to "the king of Babylon": "thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon (KJV); "you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon" (ESV); " ונשׂאת המשׁל הזה על־מלך בבל" (MT). Convincing evidence of scholarly consensus is required to make the Wikipedia article say that the reference was to a king of Assyria.  Esoglou (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Insertion in lead
An editor insists on having in the lead the following curious sentence: "At the time the observers believed Venus to be a very unusual star in that it was the first to rise in the morning and then retreated back into the darkness when the Sun rose - which is exactly what Venus does and appears to be." "At the time" - at what time? "First to rise in the morning" - on any morning that Venus appears (it does not appear every morning), it is preceded by countless stars rising as they have not ceased to do all night. "Last to rise" would be more accurate, though still inaccurate. "Observers believed Venus to be a very unusual star" - not just believed: it is unusual in that, like Mercury but unlike the other stars (planets or true stars), it is visible only for a short time until outshone by the sun (when it appears as the Morning Star) or until it sets soon after sunset (when it appears as the Evening Star). The sentence itself follows up the statement about what observers once "believed" with a statement that the planet "does" what they believed and that it "appears to be" what they believed. The editor also undid another editor's removal of the repetitious wikilink of the word "Venus", already wikilinked in the previous line. Even if the sentence were accurate, such detail would not belong in the lead of an article about what "Lucifer" means in English, a language in which the word is practically never used of the Morning Star, and would have a place instead in the section Lucifer. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This should not be added to the article without a reliable source making this assertion. __meco (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Islamic Point of View section
One more, for now, the section entitled 'Islamic point of view' has, it seems, nothing to do with Lucifer. There is no mention of Lucifer in the Quran, nor is any name in the book linked to Lucifer, even though the article lists the name Lucifer in brackets for really no reason that I can see. This section seems to me to be another floating section, having nothing to do with the topic. It's like putting into the article a section "Flashlights in Spain", because the word 'lights' was used, and then adding (Lucifer) after the word 'flashlight'. Can this section be removed in toto as well? Aleister Wilson (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The story of lucifer is mentioned in the Quran but not the word lucifer rather if you will look up the word "Shaitan"(or the devil,or fallen angel) you will see a complete history.He was the only one among all angels who disobeyed God's command to prostrate before Adam and as a punishment he was descended from the heaven. He made an agreement with God to give him life till the end of this world in return to the worship he made. And while being departed from heaven he took an oath to distract the human that is the son of Adam from the right path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.114.143 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

and god promised to burn them as well in hell who will follow the lead of shaitan(27.97.114.143 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Jameel Farooq Khan/Rawalpora)
 * What the Quran says is not about anyone called Lucifer. Fallen angel is the place in Wikipedia for what it says. Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lucifer
In the Kabbalah, the accuser is supposed to challenge, and is a worthy opponent for all. The Tree of Life is there for everyone, not for those who act like they deserve it. That's altogether the wrong attitude. If the gods are taking orders through artificial intelligence, what is being ordered? Ancient books required stories to learn from. No one used my name but me. People had to have an accuser that would correct them, not maliciously hate anyone. Lucifer hated that man got to have this free will thing first, and thought His angels deserved whatever it is, first. In ancient plays, someone had to play the murderer, and no one would use their name in such stories, so they used Satan. If people invent more than that, that's them. Imaginations can be dangerous? The Accuser 75.225.157.57 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'light bearer' as Satan and biblical accounts of idol bearing
In the Christian bible, there is a passage which speaks of idolators bearing their idols; but that worship of the true God he bears the worshiper, rather than worshiper bearing him as idolators do their idols. Has this been interpreted as the meaning of "Lucifer" as Satan the evil original antagonist of God? That the 'light' is God, and Lucifer bears light/God as a "burden" to himself when he should, in accordance with the will of God, let God bear him? 74.209.54.156 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you just made this up. Lucifer is just the Latin for phosphoros, which was the normal Greek word for the morning star, and thus used to translate Hebrew helel. This is not the place to discuss random ideas that just happened to occur to you. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nimrod

 * Could it be that Nimrod and Lucifer are the same individual? Both were kings of Babylon, none of them is officially listed on the king list - see List_of_Kings_of_Babylon.
 * Also, Nimrod was rebellious toward God. So both individuals, Nimrod and Lucifer, are considered evil. Any sources on that matter? ururur 07:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urauerochse (talk • contribs)

that's because Nimrod is a mythological king of Babel, while List_of_Kings_of_Babylon lists historical rulers. If Isaiah lived in the 740s BC, the king of Babylon he was ranting against would have been Nabonassar or thereabouts. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer, left out parts
This post would be fitting on many sections. Including one about Azazael.

There is a lot more about Lucifer, Azazel and Uriel in full volume bible, Qur'an and Hebrew bibles. Most of recent copies on the streets are summarized. The bock of Enoch, and at least 2 others mention part of there story. It has also been translated from dead sea scrolls, and some Egyptian monuments.

The not often mentioned Grigori were a group of around 200 angels and archangels. They were banished to the desert of Dudael for refuting and refusing to accept he potential of mortals. According to the story, they were lead by three "satans" (Old hebrew word meaning "betrayer"). The entire group were refered to as Betrayers, how ever the work stuck as a anme to the three leaders, previous angelics of the highest rank. The Archangel of light: Lucifer, The Angel of death: Suriel (Uriel, Syrel, many similar names have been found) and the right hand of God, Azazael.

According to the story, the group corrupted mankind teaching them arts of divine nature supposedly above mortal content. (This part can be heavily refuted as much older faiths are said to have practiced these arts, such as Druids, Pagans, Necromancers and other "occultic" faiths).

Following mortal corruption it was said that the Grigori preceded to conceive half human children, the Nephilim. There connection to this world was supposedly separated when Azazaels child child was sacrificed prior to birth.

At this point there was a quote suggesting banishment, Azazael to be chained in eternal darkness (a 6,000 year old Hebrew text where the same word could translate to "Damnation"), dragging his companions down with him.

There is a very old text from surviving pagans and other occultic faiths that suggests a few addons to the story. Suggesting there was a large conflict prior to the "banishment". It also suggests that they were not sent to hell, but how ever a place where "souls" spawn into creation, and they corrupted a large section creating "Hell". But very few scholars study, let alone give credit to such materials.

The events of this vary greatly from sources. All telling the same story, but listing different archangels among the Grigori as having taught different things. Due to how many variations exist it is often refuted, and in many modern branches of faith gets left out. The bible given to followers of Mormon for example do not include any reference to these events at all (Just proof that people do alter bibles), where as the bibles used in the Vatican have expressively detailed accounts of this event. (That is acount that Catholic and Christian worship is close enough to be counted as 1 faith). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.64.206 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A 6,000 year old Hebrew text. I am impressed. That is one old Hebrew text.

Seriously, I believe this article, and Wikipedia as a whole, are much better off without conspiracy theories and similar nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect translation
I suggest trying to do the interpretation from the KJV. You will find the results will have a slightly different result. Which it will not counterdict itself. As many of the newer Translations do. Isaiah 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionary of the morning!H7837 H7837 שׁחר shachar shakh'-ar From H7836; dawn (literally, figuratively or adverbially): - day (-spring), early, light, morning, whence riseth. Thank You and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmanmjz (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

links broken and sub topics on Jewdasim incorrect
some links/ references in the Jewish related sections are broken. More important these sections seem entirely incorrect. They rely one one source only, which seems to mix up Jewish sources with early Christian sources. I have not found a single other Jewish source that translated the morning star as described. In fact any connection between Lucifer and Jewdasim seem to be anti Semitic in origin. 46.116.71.117 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)lisaseeman

New layout and content changes
Hi all,

Making major layout and content changes to this Lucifer article per [cleanup|date=November 2011]. Please scrutinize my edits to ensure the best possible article. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer / Morning Star
Hi User: Esoglou,

I think I know what you mean by your edit...


 * 07:44, 26 June 2012‎ Esoglou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,733 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (→‎Lucifer as Morning Star: In English, unlike Latin, "Lucifer" usually means something other than Morning Start) (undo)
 * So, I believe there should be two main sections:
 * 1. for the word "lucifer" noun, hence: Lucifer in Latin (Heads a title, must be cap... content needs to just refer to it as "lucifer"
 * 2. for the name "Lucifer" proper noun, hence: Lucifer as Morning Star (Proper titles)

Thanks,Jasonasosa (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In normal (not poetic) English, "Lucifer" means the personage, not the star. The origin of the name used for this personage lies in an interpretation of the name "Morning Star" in Isaiah 14:3-23 as a reference to this personage, though in reality it there referred to a different personage.  "Lucifer as Morning Star" suggests the reality of the identification of the personage with the star.
 * It is in Latin that "Lucifer" and "Morning Star" are synonymous, not in English nor in the language of the ancient Canaanites nor in Hebrew. Except in the context of Latin, Isaiah 14:3-23 cannot be taken as a reference to the personage Lucifer, still less ("Lucifer as Morning Star") as suggesting that the personage Lucifer is there appearing in the guise of the morning star.  I think therefore that "Lucifer in Latin" should by no means be separated from the consideration of Isaiah 4:3-23.
 * I don't think that "lucifer" (with lower-case initial) is used in normal present-day English.
 * I apologize for my inability to be clearer. Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Looks good. No worries about being clearer... that's what talk page is for. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Intro
Hi User: Esoglou,

The connection of Lucifer to Satan, in any sense (rebellious, adversary, evil) is strictly Christian based, and must be indicated likewise. Islam does not believe angels can rebel and traditional Judaism has views that evil is more abstract, not taking an evil being in its literal sense. Please do the research to verify what I'm saying so that the intro follows NPOV standards and please use good book references, not just internet link references (though there was nothing wrong with the references you gave, they don't often give any or enough encyclopedic information.)

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 1
To avoid entering an edit war, I will raise issues about reverts only one at a time and not more than one a day. In spite of the rapidity of the changes being introduced, I hope perhaps to get the issues cleared up before the end of 2012 :). For today, and maybe tomorrow, this one will be enough.

Lucifer as a name
1. "It is uncertain when precisely the name "Lucifer", from the Latin translation of the Book of Isaiah 14:12, was applied to Satan." One could certainly say the name "Lucifer" does not appear in the Book of Isaiah 14:12. What is in Is 14:12 is "הֵילֵ֣ל", not "Lucifer". What is in some translations of the Book of Isaiah, not in the Book itself, is "morning star", "shining star" , "shining one" , "bright morning star" , "the bright morning star" (, "Day Star" , ... Indeed only a minority of translations capitalize the term they use to translate "הֵילֵ֣ל".  If you want to say the name "Lucifer" is in (a translation of) the Book of Isaiah, you really have to specify which translation.  If you mean the King James Version, you must say so.  But surely you don't mean to suggest that "when precisely the name "Lucifer" in ... the Book of Isaiah 14:12 was applied to Satan" can only have been after 1611 :)! A translation that did use the word lucifer (not in English, but in Latin) appeared in the last years of the fourth century. That is a more likely candidate. So why revert the reference to it?
 * In reference to your edit:
 * "It is uncertain when precisely the name "Lucifer", from the Latin translation of the Book of Isaiah 14:12, was applied to Satan."
 * Okay, I see your point... however, a slight change needs to be made. The Vulgate does not use Lucifer as a proper name. It was turned into a proper name by KJV. So... I propose to modify the edit this way (In bold to show change):
 * "It is uncertain when precisely the term lucifer , from the Latin translation of the Book of Isaiah 14:12, was applied to Satan."
 * Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is nonsense. "Lucifer" was used as a proper name long before 1611.  You don't imagine, do you, that Dante's work was later than the King James Version?  You don't think, do you, that the Church Fathers who called Satan Lucifer were born after 1611?
 * What this article is speaking about is when first the name "Lucifer" was applied to Satan, not when writers in Latin first applied the Latin term lucifer (morning star) to him. The Church Fathers and Dante did use "Lucifer" as a name long before 1611.  Besides, you surely know that Dante's Inferno was written in Italian, not Latin.  You should therefore also know that he was not applying the Latin term lucifer to Satan.  He called him Lucifer, as a name: see the final canto of his Inferno.  Esoglou (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize... I didn't mean to say that it was the KJV (1611) that applied the name. I know full well that lucifer was used as a name "Lucifer" well before the 12th century. You are absolutely correct on your points here, and please forgive me for the confusion. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why are you keeping in the text your claim that "it is uncertain when precisely 'the term lucifer, from the Latin translation of the Book of Isaiah 14:12, was applied to Satan"? I repeat: "What this article is speaking about is when first the name "Lucifer" was applied to Satan, not when writers in Latin first applied the Latin term lucifer'' (morning star) to him."
 * I've made a huge edit, merging the Lucifer as Satan section into Christianity, otherwise I would have to make a Lucifer as Nebuchadnezzar section... and I really don't want to. Please review the new modified content. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Applying Lucifer to Satan
2. "Lucifer as Satan" suggests that a pre-existing entity (whether real, literary, imaginary, or ...) took on a new role as Satan, an idea that in Wikipedia requires support from a reliable source. What the sources do say is that the name "Lucifer" (which did not exist until the word lucifer was first used in a Latin translation of Isaiah, a millennium after Isaiah's time) began at some stage to be applied to Satan. If your mind went to tampons in this context, that is no reason why the word "application" should be banned from Wikipedia :). The word "applied" is used even in your own phrase, "It is uncertain when precisely the name 'Lucifer' in the Book of Isaiah 14:12, was applied to Satan", seemingly without any thought of tampons :). The application of the name "Lucifer" to Satan is precisely what the section is about. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse my use of "tampons", I thought it was funny. There is nothing wrong with "application" or "applied". So moving on... lucifer or helel is referring to someone. The term in Isaiah 14:12 is personified. So whether he is an unnamed angel, the King of Babylon (Judaism), or Iblis (Islam) himself... it wasn't until later that this personified being was identified with Satan. These reliable sources are provided in the article to show that ''lucifer was given "a new role as Satan":
 * "Some Latin Church fathers..., applied the name to Satan" -


 * Thus, Lucifer as Satan


 * Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your first citation says: "Some Latin Church fathers ... applied the name to Satan". So what is your objection to the heading, "Application of the name Lucifer to Satan"?  Esoglou (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment 1: There is nothing wrong with using the word "Application"... I'm sorry that got totally misconstruded. "Application of the name Lucifer to Satan" is unnessarily too long of a title. What I consider is that, to many people, especially in the Christian faith, Lucifer is Satan. So the title Lucifer as Satan seems more appropriate, even though it is true that the name was "applied".- Jasonasosa (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: If there was enough content, you could also have a section called Lucifer as Nebuchadnezzar because in Judaism this is what it would be... likewise... Lucifer as Iblis for Islam. So I believe that having Lucifer as Satan takes on a more NPOV approach, whereas Applying lucifer to Satan or Application of the name Lucifer to Satan locks it in as if Lucifer was in fact Satan. - Jasonasosa (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 3: From another perspective, something else to be considered... from a Judaism point of view... Which Satan was Lucifer applied to? The Old Testament Satan (ha-satan) or the New Testament Satan? considered to be two completely separate beings even amongst non-jewish scholars. Jasonasosa (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 4: The Zondervan reference, p. 862 is a Christian book, therefore their perspective is obviously Christian based, so it was appropriate for them to say that "[Lucifer] was applied to the name Satan", using the word "applied" from their Christian perspective. However, just because the Church fathers made this "application", doesn't mean that is how everyone in the world sees it... and who are they to have the final word in their "applying" what they did? That is why I believe that use of "applied" is more POVish than just saying Lucifer as Satan, so that the opportunity for Lucifer can be whatever group wants to see Lucifer as... ex: Nebuchadnezzar, Iblis, what-have-you. - Jasonasosa (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope I was not too optimistic, even if I did add the word "perhaps", in saying that I hoped the problems that you keep adding will be solved perhaps by the end of 2012. The problem here is your change of the heading "Application to Satan" to "Lucifer as Satan" (same number of words).  Judaism does not say that Lucifer is or was anything.  Judaism rejects the idea of Lucifer as an individual.  Judaism rejects the idea that there is or was a Lucifer.  Jewish scholars - and Old Testament scholars of other or no religion - say that the description "morning star" was used of some king of Babylon (not all agree it was Nebuchadnezzar), they do not say that Lucifer is Nebuchadnezzar or that Nebuchadnezzar is Lucifer.  Your heading "Lucifer as Satan" takes, as I have said, the contrary POV, that Lucifer is an individual, that the word "Lucifer" was already a proper noun before it began to be applied as a name for Satan.  Jewish scholars - and Old Testament scholars of other or no religion - can speak about "the Lucifer myth" - not "Lucifer" (note well) - as becoming associated with Satan, indeed as being associated with Satan by Jews before there were any Christians.  They could also speak of "the name" being applied to Satan  - again not of "Lucifer being applied to the name Satan", a nonsensical statement that you attribute to the Zondervan source.  It is nonsense to claim that "application of the name "Lucifer" to Satan" - I quote: - "locks it in as if Lucifer was in fact Satan".  If I applied the name "Satan" to you - God forbid that I should - it would not lock it in as if Satan was in fact you!  It is also nonsense to claim that differences of conception of Satan or differences in conception of God make it impossible to speak of Satan or God, on the grounds that there are (supposedly) "completely separate beings" called Satan and "completely separate beings" called God.  But that is by the way.  Esoglou (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jewish Rabbis don't agree on anything... but the fact that Rabbinic exegesis has helel/lucifer associated with Nebuchadnezzar... it should to be noted.
 * Source: "Rabbinic exegesis of Isaiah 14:12-15 identifies the ascending rebel with wicked Nebuchadnezzar." -
 * Anyway, the section is now merged into Christianity where it belongs... so we dont have to argue about the stupid title anymore. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, and at this point, probably not necessary... but I just want to say that I completely disagree with you that Lucifer as Satan suggests that Lucifer was pre-existing, because personified or not, real or imaginary, it really doesn't matter... If I wanted to, I could make a section called Lucifer as a rock. Example:
 * Lucifer as a rock
 * "On refusing to serve Adam, he had become a 'stoned devil', Iblis had turned Satan" - Jung, Rabbi Leo (2004 Reprint). Fallen angels in Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan literature. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Reprints. ISBN 0766179389, p.34,35.
 * Okay, this is a little extreme, but you get my drift? Jasonasosa (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I do not at all wish to prolong this discussion unnecessarily by making any comment on such an idea as that, since a writer has said that Iblis turned Satan, becoming a "stoned devil", Wikipedia can speak of Lucifer as a rock. Esoglou (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Personification
The Book of Isaiah did not personify hêlēl. It used the word as a description, a common noun, not a proper noun. Like the word "king". And in the Vulgate lucifer is not a proper noun, is not personified. Only later did some Latin Church Fathers begin to use "Lucifer" as a name for an individual, whom they took to be Satan. "Actor" is a common noun. "John Gielgud" is a proper noun, the name of an individual. "John Gielgud as Hamlet" is a good expression. "Actor as Hamlet" is nonsense. Esoglou (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * [Response pending] from Jasonasosa (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 2
"The use of lucifer for helel occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible in Isaiah 14:12". That is an unsourced statement (as well as a curious one, since the Hebrew Bible was written only in Hebrew and Aramaic). Do you mean: "The word הילל (shining one, morning star) occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, namely in Isaiah 14:12"? This can be securely sourced. Esoglou (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have revised the lead in view of the lack of response to this observation and in view also of other problems in the previous text. Esoglou (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 3
In this reverting the view of that sector of Judaism that is represented by the Enochic literature has been removed. Why?
 * It was removed because 1. Since Jewish Pseudepigrapha is not always accepted in Judaism as a whole, you have to reference who in Judaism was making the commentary on the pseudepigrapha based content. 2. Intro was poorly written, making it seem that Isaiah 14:12 was Pseudepigrapha.

The image of Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream has been (re)inserted, although it is unrelated to the Lucifer topic. Why?
 * I don't care about images... you can removed it... I just put back the original content that was there.

Although the interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-5, 12-15 is dealt with in another section and does not seem to need repetition in this section, the German Protestant Hermann Gunkel's interpretation has been (re)inserted as belonging to the "belief system" of Judaism. Why? Esoglou (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can remove any repetitve content, as long as you are sure it is redundant material... I restored the content that was originally there when you pasted that Jewish Pseudepigrapha over it...which didn't belong... unless you have a rabbi to back it up.
 * Hope that answers most of your questions. Thanks  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  03:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing on two points out of three. With regard to the Enochic strand of Judaism, it is part of Judaism.  To see how that view is presented, you can for instance read pages 15-21 of James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, Or Other? or the section headed "Moving Forward: From the Essene Hypothesis to the Enochic/Essene Hypothesis" beginning on page 11 of Gabriele Boccaccini's Beyond the Essene Hypothesis.  It need not and should not be thought of as a different religion: it was just a strand of thought within Judaism that has inspired a number of pseudepigraphic literary works.
 * May I undo your reversal, so that we can then improve the writing and get rid of whatever makes you think that the mention of the pseudepigrapha made it seem that Isaiah 14:12 was pseudepigraphic? To my mind, the statement "In the Jewish pseudepigrapha, Isaiah 14:12 is misinterpreted" posits a clear distinction between the pseudepigrapha on the one hand and Isaiah 14:12 on the other, but the phrasing can of course be improved.  Esoglou (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you meant it seriously when you wrote "unless you have a rabbi to back it up", perhaps I had better add what I would consider a much less important source than scholars such as Davila and Boccaccini: Rabbi Shalomim Halevi. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the point... as your audience, I don't want to ask myself "where in the hell did this come from?" There should be a clear connection between Judaism and the Jewish pseudepigrapha, because the common mistake is that just because the word "Jewish" is associated with pseudepigrapha, its all of a sudden accepted in Judaism... and that is not necessarily true. So my point is, is, if we are going to incorporate philosophy or content stemming from pseudepigrapha it must be pin-pointed to its Judaist source, that's why I said "Rabbi" because, typically its a Rabbi who will either accept or condemn pseudepigraphon material. Therefore, in the paragraph try to word it so that Judaism is tied into the pseudepigrapha. Right now, I really don't want to research this, or look up the references... just make it clear for me, the tie of Judaism with whatever pseudepigrapha is presented... as I am your audience. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think anybody else but yourself would have no difficulty in recognizing that Jewish pseudepigrapha belong to Judaism. Certainly others recognize the possibility of speaking of an Enochian Judaism.  If the Karaite Jews are a form of Judaism, why do you want to exclude the writers of the Enochian pseudepigrapha from Judaism, or rather what valid reason can you adduce for doing so?  One writer speaks of "a specific 'trajectory' that, beginning with OT traditions, continues in the Judaism documented in the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha (especially through Enochian literature whether Qumranic or not)". Another likewise links "Enochian literature" with "Second Temple Judaism".
 * That is surely enough - unless you surprise me by coming up with a reliable source that says the writers of the Enochian pseudepigrapha were no part of Judaism. I am therefore restoring the text, to see if there is any concrete part of it that you deny or question.  Esoglou (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because not all rabbis agree with each other and are often divided on Jewish pseudepigrapha. Just because a certain percentage of rabbis might accept Enochian pseudepigrapha, doesn't mean it is indoctrinated into Judaism as a whole... that's why I asked if you could provide the rabbi. In the Judaism section, the context of the discussion must be presented from the perspective of Judaism as a whole. When it comes to pseudepigrapha/apocrypha, you must specify who in Judaism supports or rejects the pseudepigraphic source. This is even true in Christianity... you can't just go on in the Christian section about Enochian pseudepigrapha, when not all Christians accept it. Rather, you would have to identify the sect(s) of Christianity who do... like the Eastern Orthodox church. Just as in Judaism, you have to specify which rabbi has whatever view of the pseudepigrapha presented, because there really aren't any sects of Judaism, at least none that I'm aware of... or at least nothing comparable to Christianity. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jewish pseudepigrapha and their writers are part of Judaism, not Christianity. Christian pseudepigrapha and their writers are part of Christianity, not Judaism.  The text on Judaism that you removed duly specified the sector of Judaism in question.  (When I get to the Christianity sector, I will see that it specifies the sector of Christianity in which "Lucifer" appears as a name for a fallen angel and that it will no longer, as in your rewriting of the article, suggest that the name is used (also) by the Eastern Orthodox Church.) Your mishmash about Judaism fails to specify which sector of Judaism you are speaking about, in spite of your declaration here: "In Judaism, you have to specify which rabbi has whatever view".  Worse, in your writing about Judaism, you attribute to Judaism (all forms?) the ideas of the Tyndale Bible Dictionary (not a Jewish publication) and of a German Protestant scholar of form criticism (not a Jew)!  Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then, so... What is Enochian Apochrypha? Is it Jewish pseudepigrapha or Christian pseudepigrapha?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on having the sense to strike out this question about "Enochian Apocrypha". Nobody has proposed that this term be used in the article.  Now how about doing one or other of the following:
 * Defend your presentation of views of Christians as specifically Jewish, your false representation of a statement about Rabbinic exegesis as being about "Jewish exegesis" (which of the quite different forms of Jewish exegesis did you mean when you gave that wikilink? Midrash?  Halakha and aggadah?  Tannaim?  Mikra?), and your exclusion of one form (or perhaps even more forms?) of Judaism from the section on Judaism.
 * Fix your edit. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussed on Talk:Lucifer. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  10:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, an advance has been made: you have ceased to present the TBD view as specifically Jewish, but you still present other non-Jewish views as specifically Jewish. And you have not yet in any way fixed your deletion of information regarding a sector of Judaism.  As for your previous misrepresentation of what the reliable source said of Rabbinic Judaism, you have at least diminished it, using the phrase "medieval Judaism", which is narrower than "Rabbinic Judaism" but which is so much an improvement that it can be called "good enough", even if not simply "good".  Esoglou (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment 1
After closer inspection... I know now what is going on here. You have this completely backwards...


 * This section needs to be omitted:
 * In the Jewish pseudepigrapha, Isaiah 14:12 is misinterpreted as a reference to a fallen angel cast out of heaven and applied to Satan.(ref name=ODJR>Verses 29:4, 31:4 of the longer recension. "The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from 'Vita Adæ et Evæ' (12) and Slavonic Enoch (xxix. 4, xxxi. 4)" – Jewish Encyclopedia article Lucifer</ref)
 * Sub-Comment:' Just because this reference is from www.jewishencyclopedia.com does not mean it is Judaism! The context from the website was referring to those (Christians) who applied Isaiah 14:12-15 to Satan.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2. It uses the term "misinterpreted" implying that Jews in Judaism believe that Christians misinterpreted Isaiah 14:12. In that light, it is unencyclopedic to use this terminology even if this view were true. I moved the Life of Adam and Eve reference back to the Christianity because it supports the view of those Chrisitians who view Isaiah 14:12 as referring to Satan.

Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tell me, who do you think transferred the myth to Satan "in the pre-Christian century"? Christians?!  Jews it was who transferred the myth to Satan.  When Christians came later, they found the myth already transferred and could not avoid being influenced by that fact.  Why on earth do you so desperately wish to hide the fact that it was Jews who first transferred the myth to Satan?
 * (See Reply A below.)  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not unencyclopedic to report the statement in the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion that "in the Pseudepigrapha, particularly in the apocalypses", Satan is described as "cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)". This is information about the Jewish religion, not about the ideas of the Tyndale Bible Dictionary or of a German Protestant!  Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply B1: I may have been mistaken in regards to this... The quote "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" is not clear enough, seeming to be POV from secular authorities...and not consistent with other secular analyses. I will have to look into this more.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply B2: I fear that you are reading snippet views again! your link goes to the snippet... Snippet view of Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, p. 651, thus you are not understanding the full context of what's going on there.
 * Oxford says: "Satan's expanded role describes him as a ruler of a demonic host, influencing events around the world, cast out of a heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is. 14:12) Satan is rarely mentioned in Tannaitic literature."
 * If you read this and continued on to the end of the "Satan" section, you would see that the Oxford went beyond the scope of just Judaism. The "expanded role" was expanded by Christianity. Judaism did not put much focus on Satan because the Christians took it to another level. The misinterpretation refers to Satan being attributed to Is. 14:12 in Christianity, which goes into more detail here: The biblical museum, p94. Unfortunately, its a centuries old commentary but nonetheless still gives good info about the misinterpretation. User:Esoglou, you have to stop reading snippets, because its screwing everything up!!! Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  05:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not pleasant to be unjustly accused by you of reading only "snippets" of books. Have I not already explained to you that what you call snippets are just a short (economic in the number of characters used) way of linking to books?  When discussing things with you, it seems I would have to lengthen the nice short link to this longer form or this other longer form, both of which lead to the same text as the short form.  Or should I do as you do here: merely give an ISBN without any link to the text itself, and let you search for it then?
 * It is just nonsense to suggest that the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion was referring to Christianity when in the context of "the Pseudepigrapha, especially the apocalypses", it mentioned an expanded role given to Satan. Only later does the ODJR article mention the (historically later) New Testament and the "developing Christian tradition".  Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The snippets got me all worked up because of the last incident on the Fallen angel page, which I believe is still not cleaned up. It makes me question how much you look into the references, because I really believe that you had not read the entire Satan section based on your comments. I'm sorry about the ISBN numbers... yeah, I should have included a link to make it easier for you... I'm just on the talk page and was taking shortcuts because I wanted to get my thoughts out as priority. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  08:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we are expected to assume good faith on the part of other editors and to comment on edits, not editors. Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know... I'm sorry for having insulted you on more than one occasion. We see things very differently at times and it is hard to congeal at times. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  20:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I promise to abandon in these articles the shortened form of linking to a book page on Google Books, since it has been shown to be open to a misinterpretation that it is my duty to avoid. Esoglou (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I promised, I edited Lucifer to include Enochic Judaism during the Second Temple period, while ripping out the other garbage. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2

 * Do not omit this content:
 * Heylel,  הֵילֵל  (hēlēl), the "shining one", "morning star", "day star", in Isaiah 14:12 is a designation for the haughty king of Babylon, who having aspired so high at the cost of Israel, would be brought down by God. Jewish exegesis of Isaiah 14:12-15 identifies the heylel king, as Nebuchadnezzar II, who proposed after destroying Jerusalem, I will make war with the exalted holy ones and will set my royal throne over the cherubim.

This content is mainstream Jewish exegesis, and is properly sourced... Why do you keep omitting this section?

&mdash; Jasonasosa  17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the text that you have twice reverted, the sourced information about the Rabbinic exegesis that identifies the king of Is 14:12-15 with Nebuchadnezzar II is given. The difference is that your version falsely attributes to the source the idea that this was or is the only "Jewish" exegesis of the text, instead of reporting what the source actually says.  The text you have twice reverted did not, of course, repeat the view already given earlier in the article that the morning star of Is 14:12 is a pride-filled king of Babylon.  Why on earth should it repeat this view?  It is the general view of scholars of all faiths and none, including the presumably Christian scholars of the Tyndale Bible Dictionary, which you curiously cite as a specifically Jewish view!  Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply A
 * Okay, our wires are crossed. Let's just reset for a moment. We need to agree on something... because we are like dogs biting at each others throats.
 * We both agree that Enochic apocrypha is Jewish pseudepigrapha.
 * We both agree that Enochic literary works (spanning beyond the Books of Enoch) was initially founded in Judaism.
 * We both agree that their are multiple Jewish exegesis of Isaiah 14.
 * What we ought to do then, is find what sects of Judaism support which view. It is my understanding...
 * that many of the Enochic literary works were produced around the Second Temple period. So the group of Judaism that supports the view of fallen angels/satan, whatever, as literal beings coming down to earth from heaven, could easily be identified as Second Temple Judaism or Enochian Judaism.
 * that in Medieval judaism, a view of fallen angels was suppressed by many renown rabbi, supporting the view that evil was abstract and the king in Isaiah 14 was just a human king of Babylon. This also goes hand in hand with the Sons of God being viewed as "Sethites" or human rulers, suppressing the notion of literal angels doing wrong... because as many Medieval rabbis viewed it, angels can do no wrong.
 * (See ISBN 0826470890, p.2: Although missing some details, it does give a quick overview about the distinction between Second Temple Judaism and later rabbis who tried to root out non-biblical texts, concerning Enochic literary works.) Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you admit the existence of Second Temple Judaism and its distinction from medieval Judaism, why do you persist in excluding it from discussion of Judaism? Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We will work it in... originally there was no source/reference for it.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there were several sources/references to the ideas of Jewish writers of the Second Temple period, and you deleted them. Why not put them back?  Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I did that... unless there was a good reason for it. Could you find it and bring it back? I think we need to be careful about how much we go into the influence of Pseudepigrapha from the Second Temple period, so as to avoid WP:Synth. Although discussion of it works well under the WP:Scope of Satan, I'm finding it difficult to tie it into Lucifer, because the exegesis of Lucifer being Satan is not widely accept across all denominations and secular authorities. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  16:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How would what you deleted do? You can't demand that those who interpreted Isaiah 14 in that way used the name "Lucifer".  The name was invented centuries later and in another language.  But they did interpret the morning star of Isaiah 14 as meaning a fallen angel, and they identified this "morning star" with Satan.  Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it not time to remove from your "Judaism" section the information that, as you agreed below, is not peculiar to Judaism and could equally be presented under "Christianity", concerning German Protestant Hermann Gunkel's statement and the statement, "In Isaiah 14:3-5, 12-15 of the Tenakh, the prophet Isaiah promises that the Israelites will be free from their Babylonian captivity and will be able to use, in a taunting song against their oppressor, the image of the morning star. The phrase 'O star of the morning, son of the dawn' in verse 12 translates the Hebrew הילל בן־שׁחר, Helel Ben-Shachar"?

As for the connection of "Lucifer" with Judaism, what do you think of the statement in a book coauthored by a rabbi: "Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have Satan beginning as an angel, who, because of his own nature and free will, falls from grace. In Christian and Jewish tradition, his name was Lucifer (which means Bearer of Light), before he was booted out of heaven"? Esoglou (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Looking into Hermann Gunkel which was referenced from the jewishencyclopedia website) &mdash;  Jasonasosa  10:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Christianity
Regarding Tyndale reference:


 * Christian scholars interpret the Hebrew term heylel, הֵילֵל (hēlēl, the "shining one", "morning star", "day star", in Isaiah 14:12 as designating the haughty king of Babylon, who having aspired so high at the cost of Israel, would be brought down by God.(ref></ref)


 * Though omitted, this is a good reference; there is nothing wrong with it. Where does it go? It can go somewhere up the page... but it really doesn't belong under Christianity. Why? Because it's not Christian exegesis. It is just stating what Isaiah already said... that Morning Star/heylel/Lucifer/Phosphorous is the King of Babylon. The Medieval Jewish exegesis of Isaiah 14:12 is that the king of Babylon is Nebuchadnezzar II, and the Christian exegesis of Morning Star/heylel/Lucifer/Phosphorous is Satan. Do you get it now?
 * Recap:
 * Tyndale repeats Isaiah saying "King of Babylon" (No other identification)
 * Medieval Jewish exegesis = Nebuchadnezzar II
 * Christian exegesis = Satan
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Christian and Jewish exegesis of Is 14:12 by reputable present-day scholars is that the reference is to a king of Babylon.
 * There was no justification for removing from under "Christianity", by yet another reversal, the views of Christian reputable scholars (editors of the Tyndale Bible Dictionary and Hermann Gunkel) on the grounds that the reverter had already presented those views as Jewish!! At the same time, the reverter made a comment on the editor, not the edit, suggesting that the editor was smoking crack.  Esoglou (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you...  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I know what to tell you... Go look up exegesis. Notice its definition: "critical explanation or interpretation...", the operative word being critical. Everyone knows that the passage is referring to a King of Babylon: Isaiah knew it, the Christians, Rabbis and scholars know it... and wow, even Tyndale knows it, because it is clearly stated in Isaiah 14:4. The critical part is determining who that king is and Tyndale does NOT give a crticial explanation or interpretation of who that king is... therefore it is NOT exegesis of any kind from any sect.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  10:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. We now both agree that what the TBD says at that point is not a specifically Jewish view. But why are you still presenting German Protestant Hermann Gunkel's statement as specifically Jewish? And why are you still presenting as specifically Jewish the statement, "In Isaiah 14:3-5, 12-15 of the Tenakh, the prophet Isaiah promises that the Israelites will be free from their Babylonian captivity and will be able to use, in a taunting song against their oppressor, the image of the morning star. The phrase 'O star of the morning, son of the dawn' in verse 12 translates the Hebrew הילל בן־שׁחר, Helel Ben-Shachar." Everyone knows that. Christians, Rabbis and scholars know it. The idea is not peculiar to Judaism. It could equally be presented under "Christianity". Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. Please keep in mind that this page has been damaged with a lot of WP:OR and subcontent that was all over the place. This page had not been fully discussed or collaborated with any solid group of editors. I am not the author of this page, so you can't attribute content to me as if its mine. I restored some content that you failed to explain as to why you had omitted them in your edits. So we are back to discussing every line item again. This is good anyway, because now the page is under scrutiny by us both, in order to make it a good article which I submitted for assessment, that's if User:John Carter ever makes it here. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your declaration of intention to do something about the "Judaism" section (if I not mistaken, it was you who added it to the article). May I remark also that your latest change of the lead (which, though strongly tempted, I did not simply revert) was by no means an improvement.  Ask anyone at random what they understand by "Lucifer".  They'll understand by it some kind of fallen angel, surely.  Only after telling what is normally understood by the word is the time to explain how the word came about and how it came to have this meaning.   Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, I agree with you... you see, the intro is constantly going to be edited and re-edited and I just have this feeling that it will never stick to anything solid. All I can say is... just grab a line item that you disagree with and let's try to talk about it... I know it's frustrating at times, but I don't know what else to do. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Then why not take as the basis for working on a text that did start with the ordinary understanding of what "Lucifer" means:

Lucifer ( or ) is a name given in Western Christianity to an angelic being supposed to have been referred to in, a text that describes a king of Babylon as a fallen morning star (in Hebrew, הילל, hêlēl, literally "shining one"). This word was translated in the late 4th-century Vulgate as lucifer (Latin for "morning star", literally "light-bringing").

Unlike the Greek word ἑωσφόρος (heosphoros), the translation of הילל in the Septuagint,< the Latin word lucifer later came to be used as a proper name for the fallen angel supposedly referred to in the text, who was identified with the Devil. Among the works of literature that use the name in this way are Dante Alighieri's Inferno, John Milton's Paradise Lost and the King James Version of Isaiah 14:12.

Apart from its common use as a proper name for this supposed angelic being, the word "lucifer" is applied also to the planet Venus in its dawn appearance (capitalized when personified), to a friction match, and to a genus of prawn. Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We need verification of Western Christianity.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  18:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Verification of what? The Latin word "Lucifer" undeniably exists both in that language and in languages that derived vocabulary from that language.  Do you have any doubt that in those languages "Lucifer" is used as a name for the leading fallen angel?  If you do, let me know which language and I will try to find you a source.  On the other hand, although Greek has in recent centuries adopted many words from the West, it has not adopted a word derived from "Lucifer".  The Google translator gives for English "Lucifer" Greek "Αυγερινός" (Avyerinos), which means "morning star" (literally, "associated with the dawn").  And for Εωσφόρος (which, as you know, was the word, with a slightly different spelling and which then meant only "morning star", used in the Jewish Septuagint translation of Isaiah 14:12 into Koine Greek) my dictionary of modern Greek gives two meanings: 1) Σατανάς (Satan); and 2) Αυγερινός.  You are not suggesting, are you, that to include traditions of languages such as Greek the title of the article be changed to "Morning Star (fallen angel)"?  Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still puzzled about what you think should be verified. There is no doubt, is there, that in Western Christianity "Lucifer" came to be used as a name for the devil?  Are you worried about the suggestion that "Lucifer" did not come to be used in that way in Eastern Christianity?  That is not stated explicitly and, if it were, that is what would need to be verified.  Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I got a little confused because Eastern Christianity readily accepted the Apocalypses, but I guess it make sense that the Lucifer/Satan identification would take off in Western Christianity because of lucifer being rooted in Latin. So... I guess we can remove the tag then... &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)