Talk:Satan

This article's wrongful portrayal of the angel of accusation Lucifer in an undignified and unremarkable light shows the clearly evident Christian bias. I suggest that this 'simple English' article be improved and the data contained herein be extrapolated to fit with Wikipedia's current intellectual theme. (158.59.246.181 17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You can of course have your opinion. I invite you to make this article better in those ways you see fit (After the creative pause I inflicted upon your poor soul is over). Make this a start for a new life as a non-vandalising member of our small community. --Eptalon 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sourcs[change source]

The Bible is a primary source, but primary sources are discouraged. Try to use a secondary source instead. PassaMethod (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you didn't give any source to back up your claim. Where does it say that? A primary source is better than no source, which is what there was (and there are many articles here that have no source -- and need I remind you that you have added things without a source?). Nearly all Biblical-based articles here give citations as I have here. And I have never had anyone revert one of those edits before. If you want to improve an article, make changes, but don't just revert it all back to the way it was -- which certainly wasn't as good. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting primary sources because there are no sources is a poor argument. You could easily do a google search in order to find better sources yet you resort to this. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. In that way, we are able to check its reliability by checking the publisher, the author, the reviews etc.

A primary source should only be used with direct statements rather than your own interpretation. You should not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself. PassaMethod (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have hardly addressed anything that I've said. It is not against the rules to give scripture refs. But it is against the rules to remove valid content. If you want to add or improve refs, go ahead, but to say that primary sources shouldn't be used is not a good reason to revert all back -- and you know it. And you also know not to engage in edit warring. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]