Talk:Asmodeus

Untitled

Unsure of how to fix this: It mentions in the first paragraph that the Book of Tobit is deuterocanonical, but then proceedes in the Asmodai in Judaism section to mention (elaborate?) the Book of Tobit. Is this not a kind of mismatch?

http://www.piney.com/ApocTobit.html

I am new here so I didn't want to go moving too much around, but if any more experienced editors could clean this up that would be good. -- user:Goosey — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 21 December 2004 (UTC)

FYI I just met this demon unexpectedly for the first time while helping a teen break their pact with Satan, thanks to wikipedia I know what it is about Keith Hodges (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The fact that this particular book is not part of the Hebrew Biblical canon doesn't change the fact that it is a Jewish religious text. -- Naive cynic 19:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Job: A comedy of Justice-he is mentioned there

Towards the end of the Robert A. Heinlein novel, Job: A Comedy of Justice, he is mentioned by at least one name-A.S. Modeus, and perhaps by a slightly altered version of the the name Asmodai. Worth a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.145.119 (talk) 05:23, 2006 February 1 (UTC)

Asmodai in the Lesser Key of Solomon

It is stated that in the Lesser Key of Solomon he is ranked only 32nd. I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but to me it doesn't appear that the numbering of demons in this work reflects their actual rank. Indeed, Asmoday is described to be "first and choicest under the power of Amaymon, he goeth before all other". (This is the Mathers/Crowley edition.) After the list of the demons, it is said: "These be the 72 mighty kings and princes which king Solomon commanded into a Vessel of Brass, together with their legions, of whom Belial, Bileth, Asmoday and Gaap were chief."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/lks/lks07.htm

He is actually called Asmoday in the Lesser Key of Solomon, and he is a King, his seal is gold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.159.137 (talk) 13:38, 2006 February 9 (UTC)

Additions

I added some things, moved some around, and formated a bit. More citations are going to be needed if this article is to go anywhere. I may work the demonology section into the section I called Asmoday soon. But seeing as how my additions were the only ones cited, I seperated it from the rest for now, but will try to find sources for the demonology section. Zos 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus in fiction

The list is getting out of hand. Way too many entries and trivia, so I moved it to the talk page where hopefully we can integrate some of its content into the article body as stated in WP:TRIV.

Asmodeus in fiction

• In Dungeons & Dragons, Asmodeus currently resides in Fortress Malsheem, located in Nessus, the ninth layer of Baator. He is acknowledged by all baatezu as the king of Baator, essentially making him lord of the nine layers of Hell. In earlier publications, Asmodeus was the Lord of the Nine Hells, having overthrown Baalzebub (now Baalzebul), who himself overthrew Satan (who walks the Earth). Asmodeus was Lawful Evil and overlord of the (lawful) devils (as opposed to Demogorgon who was Chaotic Evil and overlord of the (choaotic) demons).
• In David Allen's video game, Mordor: The Depths of Dejenol, as Asmodeus, the Prince of Devils and the game's ultimate boss.
• El Diablo Cojuelo (The Cripple Devil), by Luís Vélez de Guevara
• Paradise Lost, by John Milton
• In Redwall, by Brian Jacques, he is a giant adder (see Asmodeus Poisonteeth).
• In the Wheel of Time books by Robert Jordan as Asmodean, one of the thirteen Forsaken, near-immortal men and women of magical might and political influence who serve the Dark One.
• In Nomine as Asmodeus, one of the Demon Princes.
• Shadow Hearts: Covenant as Asmodeus, a demon. He was summoned by Rasputin.
• Terranigma as Asmodeus, the disease that ravaged the surface world.
• Megatokyo webcomic as Asmodeus, archenemy to Seraphim
• In the Japanese comic Angel Sanctuary, Asmodeus was once a member of the cherubim and represents the sin of Lust as one of the Seven Satans.
• Gene Roddenberry's Spectre has a fictional cult devoted to the worship of him. In addition, the animated Star Trek episode The Magicks of Megas-tu features a resident of Megas-tu who claims he was known, on Earth, as Asmodeus.
• In the arcade/Nintendo 64 fighting game Mace: The Dark Age, Asmodeus is a demon who wields an unholy relic called the Mace of Tanis. Drawing on its netherwordly power, he supports the Covenant of Seven, an alliance of vicious rulers in the medieval world. In return, these sovereigns constantly war on their neighbouring countries and subject their lessers to the worst kinds of torture imaginable, thus satisfying the dark cravings of the Mace and its master.
• The first Star Ocean video game features the Demon King Asmodeus as the source of the virus that ravaged the planet of Roak.
• In the Ogre Battle Saga, as both Asmodeus and Asmodee, the god of Bane.
• In Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned, Asmodeus is the demon the titular character must defeat in the Temple of Solomon.
• In the comic series RFU, Asmodai is the leader of the Pointy Hat Guys, responsible for orchestrating many of the series' events.
• In the PC game Diablo, referred to as Azmodan, the Lord of Sin.
• In Anne Perry's Tathea, Asmodeus is the evil counterpart to God.
• In Linda Haldeman's Esbae: A Winter's Tale, Chuck Holmes summons the demon Asmodeus to help him pass his college classes.
• In Robot Alchemical Drive, Asmodeus is the Leader of an evil robot race, and the final boss.
• In a Role-Playing Story called the "Yoshi Bodyguards" (formerly located in the Nintendo Nsider Forums, now in a private forum), Asmodeus is a Titan made of fire. The story's main character was named Asmodeus as well.
• In a series of novels by Richard Harland called the Heaven and Earth Trilogy, Asmodai is a fallen angel who pretends to repent. He is welcomed back into Heaven, but secretly continues to plot Heaven's fall.
• In the video game Painkiller, Asmodeus is the leader of Lucifer's armies. In the expansion, he usurps the throne of Lucifer.
• In Charmed the leader of the demonic group, the Triad, is named Asmodeus.
• Asmodai is also the name given to the Interrogator-Chaplain of the Dark Angels Space Marine chapter in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe.
• In Raven's Gate, by Anthony Horowitz, Jayne Deverill, a witch, has a cat called Asmodeus.
• In the action videogame Max Payne, the psychotic mafia goon Jack Lupino mentions Asmodeus in his deluded worship of various demons and other malevolent figures.
• Asmodaios was the name of a Greek satirical newspaper published by writer Emmanouel Roidis between 1875 and 1876.
• Asmodeus is the name of the demon who is about to be raised by his followers demons in the Playstation 2's game Shadowman 2 Second Coming.
• Asmodeus is the name of the demon of lust in the film Demon hunter (2005) portrayed by the actor Billy Drago.
• In the book Dora, Doralina by Rachel De Queiroz, Asmodeus is the name of the main character's second husband/true love. His father named him Asmodeus in order to spite a local Catholic priest.

Orphu of Io 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia user, i would have wanted this on the page itself -- i am editing a book and needed THESE references, not the article. Also, over the past ten years, the list has been re-asserting itself on the article page anyway, and i wasted time editing the article for chronology, not knowing a better version of the list had been moved here to the talk page. I really dislike the fact that someone moved the list here. it is not "trivia." Far from it. Insofar as Asmodeaus is a cross-culturally multiversal shared LITERARY character, the list is important information. I have removed the below adventitious attempts to restore the list at the article page and am dropping them here. I dislike doing this, because i believe strongly that the list is valuable, but consistency precludes splitting the data across two pages:

• Asmodeus is a character in the entire Forgotten Realms Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting, which is the setting for Erin M. Evans' Brimstone Angels book series where he is depicted as a Devil-god and the King of the Nine Hells. The character is utilized by Evans but was not created by the author.

• In the film Gabriel, Asmodeus is shown as a very handsome owner of a brothel in Purgatory, where a fallen angel is forced to work. He's disfigured one of the workers until she looks like him. He also blows up the soup kitchen, just before the final confrontation between Gabriel (Andy Whitfield) and Sammael/Michael (Dwaine Stevenson). He's portrayed by the Australian actor Michael Piccirilli.

• In Larry Miller's Just Words, Miller makes a reference to Asmodeus in describing one of his "friends," also making a reference to Goethe's Faust-Mephistopheles.

• Asmodeus (under the name Asmoday) plays a significant role in Alan Moore's book 'Jerusalem' 2A00:23C4:4B95:9000:D5E2:97A3:7D8C:CC6B (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

75.101.104.17 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the TV series "Shadowhunters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:22F1:7010:6C51:EC9D:67FB:C38A (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Some discernment of taste would have helped: 101 mentions in forgettable trash culture, with exhaustive in-work explanations; but one measly mention of Paradise Lost by John Milton, without which the pop-culture references would not exist! Nuttyskin (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia material

Would recommend simply using this material as a source and integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article and citing rather than keeping intact. The Jewish Encyclopedia's view of Asmodai in Zoroastrianism should go in the Zoroastrianism section, for example. --Shirahadasha 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

>> Would recommend simply using this material as a source and integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article and citing rather than keeping intact.

done.

>> The Jewish Encyclopedia's view of Asmodai in Zoroastrianism should go in the Zoroastrianism section, for example.

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906!) is hardly a legitimate source of information on Zoroastrianism. In any case, Asmodai is not a Zoroastrian entity. Aeshma(-Daeva) is, and there are articles on both halves of that compound term.

-- Fullstop 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Asmodeus/Asmodai in the Christian Bible

Has Asmodeus/Asmodai ever been mentioned in any translation/version of the Christian Bible?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.168.245 (talk) 09:35, 2008 May 25 (UTC)

Yes, in the Catholic and Orthodox versions. See Book of Tobit thx1138 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Asmodai → Asmodeus — Asmodeus, the graeco-latinised form, is most widely used name to refer to the entity. — Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as proposer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Why not use a redirect? Phil_burnstein (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: done. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support it is the accepted English name as far as I can discern. Epson291 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• The Jewish and Catholic Encyclopedias, and Britannica Support the proposal. I'll explain some of the issues in discussion below. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This, with s for Shin, is neither Greek, Latin, nor Hebrew. Use the conventional form in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think the policy in question here is WP:Use English; "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources". Google News, Books and Scholar searches all bring back more results for Asmodeus; it appears reliable encyclopedias use the term too. I see no obvious counterarguments and so support the move.
  To the person who says "Why not use a redirect", of course both names should point at the article; currently Asmodeus is a redirect: The question is, which of the candidate titles is most appropriate here; I argue that WP:UE means it should be Asmodeus. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

We are being asked to choose between the Hebrew transliteration and the Christian usage. Why choose? Phil_burnstein (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Asmodai isn't even the correct transliteration. Epson291 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey yeah...I thought it was Ashmedai anyway....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Many articles are at anglicised or otherwise derived terms, thus we have Saturn and not Saturnus, and Cronus and not Kronos, and Thoth and not ḏiḥautī for instance. The rule for all of these is the more widely used name, which Asmodeus is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it remarkable that a word with more vowel sounds than consonants (and with only one explicitly declared vowel) would -- in a script with highly ambiguous vowel characters -- be considered to have a "correct transliteration"? In phonetics the term is "wishful thinking". -- Fullstop (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thinking aloud

I think the etymology section of the current article helps point out why we can relax about the spelling here.

The name is believed to derive from the Avestan language (which is a long lost cousin of English, Greek and Latin), but is first attested in the Greek-second-language writing of the Aramaic-speaking, second-temple Jewish people. The Jewish Encyclopedia considers that the name "cannot" be derived from the Semitic language three consonant root system, in this case Sh-M-D (שמד, "destroy"). {It would be good to have more information on why they think that.}

It would appear that a Persian name was adapted to suit Aramaic, then readapted to Greek and eventually into Latin. All these languages were dominant world languages in their day, rather like English at the present time. The name has adapted with the times, why should it stop changing? How can we privelege any one time from the past over the others in selecting a "correct" transliteration?

In the current case I'd suggest it would be unwise to go back to the Avestan, because we are not exactly sure that is the source, and the Zoroastrian and Rabbinic traditions have substantial differences.

On the other hand, there are many cute things about running with common English usage. The common English form is just a Latin form, which fits with the fact that the Roman Catholic church holds to the accuracy of the book of Tobit (whereas Jews and Protestants don't). Also a Latin form takes us back into an Indo-European language expression of the word, which could give us echoes of the original Avestan after all. For example, Asmo-deus, if from Avestan Aeshma-devi, does actually pick up that Latin deus (God) and devi (or devi) are well-known Indo-European cognates.

Against my own view is that of the turn of the 20th century German scholars (see Wolf Wilhelm Graf von Baudissin, "Asmodi", below), who were perfectly comfortable with Latin, but prefered the Semitic form of the name; but they were writing for a different audience.

Look up Tobit 3 in any Catholic Bible and you will find Asmodeus, spelled just like that. He's not in Jewish or Protestant Bibles though, 'cause they don't include that book.

Alastair Haines (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The full form of the King James Version includes the Apocrypha, complete with Tobit, and Asmodeus, here. (I suppose this raises the question of whether the Anglican Communion is Protestant; let's not go there ;->) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Any relation to Samael? They seem to be wife-swapping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.101 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

See also?

The article 'Rennes-le-Château' included in the See Also section does not mention demons at all, much less ashmodai. Did I miss something? Phil_burnstein (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea. removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources

Just dropping in refs as I poke about a bit.

• Crawford Howell Toy, "Evil Spirits in the Bible", Journal of Biblical Literature 9 (1890): 17–30.
• Charles Cutler Torrey, "'Nineveh' in the Book of Tobit", Journal of Biblical Literature 41 (1922): 237–245.
• Henry A. Redpath, "Mythological Terms in the LXX", The American Journal of Theology 9 (1905): 34–45.
• Wolf Wilhelm Graf von Baudissin, "Asmodi", in de:Albert Hauck and Johann Jacob Herzog (eds.), Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, (Leipzig: de:Johann Conrad Hinrichs, 1896-1913), vol. 2, p. 142. (in German)
• Erik Stave, Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judentum, (Haarlem: E.F. Bohn, 1898). (in German)
• Nathaniel ben Jehiel (of Rome), Aruch Completum, 8 volumes, edited by Alexander Kohut, (Vindobona: Hebräischer Verlag "Menorah", 1926), vol 1, p. 318. (in Hebrew)

Alastair Haines (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dungeons and Dragons ref

It doesn't belong. Every other example in that section is cited to an independent source, which indicates that particular depiction's impact on the general popular perception. The monstrous manual and DMG "references" do not do that, and there is no indication they are important to the general perception. They belong at the IPC article, not here. Mintrick (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing to primary, secondary or tertiary sources is a guideline, not a rule. But in the interests of avoiding an edit war, I will procure secondary sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

English please

Asmodeus would thus seem to be a demon characterized by carnal desire; but he is also described as an evil spirit in general: 'Ασμοδαίος τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον or τõ δαιμόνιον πονηρόν, and πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον (iii.8, 17; vi.13; viii.3).

This is English Wikipedia not a lit journal. Readers cannot be expected to read other languages. --Tysto (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So a translation would be helpful, e.g. 'Ασμοδαίος τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον: Asmodeus the wicked demon.

Nuttyskin (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The Greek term "πονηρός" is still in use and does not mean "wicked". The following Greek to English translation gives the equivalent English terms as "sly", "crafty", "devious", "cunning", "shrewd", and "astute". As a native Greek speaker, I have never heard πονηρός associated with wickedness. It is often used to describe foxes and the trickster god Hermes. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

sources are incomplete

A source needs to be added for Rudwin, mentioned in the references but otherwise undefined. Rwflammang (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference is ref #11 - I added others with the other page numbers. I'll split out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talmud and Qur'an

I added a needed reference to Asmodeus in the Talmud. GITTEN 68a & 68b.. where you can find the story of capturing him using the magic ring of Solomon and a magic chain (much like Frodo & Gollum actually!!) There is a mention in the Qur'an of Demons helping Solomon (Sulaiman) build stuff & get marbles from under the sea. Sura (Sad 38:37) "Then We subjected the Wind To his power, to flow Gently to his order, Whithersoever he willed,— As also the evil ones, (Including) every kind Of builder and diver,— As also others bound Together in fetters."

Salama

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.17.105 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems with former references

It seems confusion arises between the former poster's views who claims the Jewish encyclopedia would have said that there are no links whatsoever between AEshma Daeva and Ashmodai, yet he posted only the link to the reference in the encyclopedia "Aeshma" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/873-aeshma-asmodeus-ashmedai while I looked up "Asmodeus" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2019-asmodeus I came to believe both articles were from different sites but no it comes from the same website which has the unedited full text 1906 version of the Jewish Encyclopedia. Still in the Aeshma article in the encyclopedia, there is a chapter called "Influence of Persian Beliefs on Judaism." : "However, it is not impossible that Æshma-dæva, too, may have had other qualities analogous, point for point, to those of Asmodeus and Ashmedai. It is probable that the belief in the existence of a number of carnally minded and lascivious spirits, which was prevalent among the Parsees as among other peoples with whom the people of Israel came in contact, exercised an influence not merely on the Hebrew conceptions of an Asmodeus or Ashmedai, but also on Jewish ideas in general with regard to the qualities of evil spirits."

"Not the least was the influence of Parseeism."

"the depiction of Ashmedai in the Talmud, show that the popular beliefs of the Persians have likewise had a bearing, presumably in the first instance, on popular beliefs, and later, through them, on their theological modes of thought."

More, in the article "Asmodeus" in the encyclopedia , the etymological connection is refuted: "A consideration of the linguistic arguments does not support the hypothesis of an identification of Ashmedai with Æshma-dæva, as "dai" in Ashmedai hardly corresponds with the Persian "dæva," in view of the Syriac form "dawya" (demon) with the consonant "w"; nor is there any instance of the linking of "Æshma" and "dæva" in Persian texts."

yet, in the same chapter of the same article comparing AEshma with Ashmodai there is a part denoting that in some texts their roles and appearance are somehow similar: "Asmodeus of the Apocrypha, and Æshma, however, seem to be related. In the Testament of Solomon Asmodeus appears as seducing man to unchaste deeds, murder, and enmity, and thus reveals many points in common with Æshma. The "Bundehish" (xxviii. 15-18) furnishes the most striking resemblance: "There, wherever Æshm lays a foundation, many creatures perish." " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

what's an introvet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.213.118 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Correcting Bad Reference (#42)

It appears as though reference #42 has a bad link. Based on a search at the Library of Congress website, I believe the proper link should be <https://www.loc.gov/item/mal4080600/>.

Apologies if I am mistaken or have not suggested this edit properly.

Larryleveen (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Flazrael here ...

Hey, this is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Damonthesis signing back in with a new account -- I really hope you all give second chances because this is my "first attempt" I never really had any "sock puppets" or other accounts, it's just that one and I was using it just to make "silly little edits" and ensure the history linked a set of mind control related pages to religion and myself.

This is that, continuing. Forever in the Swiki "permalog" of the Wikipedia DVD's and "our English idea" the series on how and where:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_image_rule - https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CABBMB_enUS988US988&sxsrf=AOaemvKOVzk5Mjc0HVVfnzIJg7fI5ytXqw%3A1642366913912&lei=wYfkYaCKN6WbwbkPr8SyqAc&q=mirror%20image%20rule&ved=2ahUKEwjg7vnDlbf1AhWlTTABHS-iDHUQsKwBKAB6BAg7EAE&biw=1517&bih=702&dpr=0.9

We have some other issues to deal with, I think this specific page is missing information related to the length of time Azmogod was "left in Hell" and it was something on the order of millions of years if I remember correctly. It could have been hundreds, that's my best effort at recollection, I'll search the logs for "years" in a little bit.

I am very concerned. Obviously this "is me" ... this specific page, and it should definately link directly to Damonthesis and ... "Adam"

I have some work to do.

The mirror list and tunneling or gophering through the series discusses a significant issue. There are a number of broken German mirrors and no other country appears interested in saving the information on Wikipedia. Nobody is "doing the right thing" and attempting to help us build a better moderation system and ensure that we have a compilation of the world's knowledge on par with World Book and Brittanica.

- https://www.britannica.com/

That's basically today's Merck manual on the illogical idiocy regarding the DSM-V and DSM-IV ... and I mean, it hasn't really been kept up. I personally believe I have a 90's era World Book that I read from regarding Clinton and Oxford; so those things are concrete, I was reading about Rhodes scholarship as he was the sitting president--and is a Rhodes scholar (afaik).

21:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazraegrailf (talk • contribs)

Islam Template?

Do you think Asmodeus is eligible for the "People and things in the Quran" template? He appears, but isn't mentioned by name, only the exegesis links the name to this figure, the figure itself, however, appears. I am undcided- VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

In popular culture

Two movies, both widely released across the world, are "pop culture." There is nothing wrong with including them here. -- 75.7.111.216 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Original research template in “Testament of Solomon” section

I have revised the section to address the original-research concern. The wording now attributes the relevant claims directly to McCown's Greek edition, McCown's apparatus, LSJ, and Tobit 8:3. Interpretive wording such as “presumably added” has been removed, and that passage now distinguishes between what the Greek text explicitly states and what is described as narrative consistency. Since the remaining material is sourced and attributable, I think the section-level OR template may no longer be necessary. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You removed several "to whom?" templates without clarifying them, I've restored these.

When you write something like this variant suggests a form of tickling, teasing, and poking physical stimulation, do you mean "to McCown", "to me as a Wikipedia editor" or "to the AI chatbot that I have asked about this"? Belbury (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was necessary to further clarify them. To answer your question: I mean the Greek text itself, McCown's critical edition and apparatus, and the LSJ lexicon where explicitly cited. And I am the author of these edits. Where the wording could be read as my own inference, I have revised it to attribute the relevant statements directly to the Greek text, McCown's edition and apparatus, or the LSJ lexicon, as appropriate. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The sentence now reads Given the use of a κάλαμος ("reed", "stalk of wheat", "reed pen"), McCown's variant describes a form of tickling, teasing, and poking physical stimulation, and not mere striking. - this is your interpretation of McCown's translation, rather than something that McCown explicitly noted himself? Belbury (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. McCown does not provide an English translation or a personal interpretive comment on this point. In the relevant part of the critical edition (pp. 21*–25*), the apparatus is written in Ancient Greek and records variant readings drawn from the Greek manuscript witnesses, alongside the text selected for the edition. Apart from explicit cross-references such as those to the Book of Tobit, McCown does not add a prose explanation of the physical action described in variant 10.

Accordingly, the sentence is based on the translation and lexical analysis of the Greek wording of variant 10 itself. McCown prints the relevant Greek passage and the manuscript evidence; the interpretation follows from the meanings of the words used there, including κάλαμος (kálamos) and the other terms describing the action and its effect. The dictionary meanings and the direct links to the lexical entries were included so that the translation and interpretation can be checked against the primary source.

So, more precisely, the wording about “tickling, teasing, and poking physical stimulation” is an translation of the Greek variant based on its textual and lexical features. The Greek text itself can of course be consulted directly in McCown’s apparatus at p. 22*, variant 10. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Better: the wording about “tickling, teasing, and poking stimulation” is not merely my personal interpretation, but a reading based on the textual and lexical features of the Greek passage recorded in McCown’s apparatus at p. 22, variant 10.* Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

McCown does not comment on anything in English in the pages in which he specifically analyzes the Testament of Solomon (in this case, pages 21*–25* of the critical edition).

He reproduces one of the surviving historical and original manuscripts, which he chooses as the standard manuscript; he then analyzes its variant readings, numbering them and drawing them from other original manuscripts. In the case of variant 10 on p. 22*, the relevant witness is manuscript L, as indicated at the end of the passage in Ancient Greek.

However, everything—the standard manuscript as well as the variants drawn from the other original manuscripts—is written exclusively in Ancient Greek, without any paraphrase or commentary whatsoever, either in English or in Ancient Greek. Only the references to the Book of Tobit are explicitly given, naturally in the Latin alphabet in this case, at the foot of the pages beneath the notes relating to the variants themselves.

It is therefore necessary to translate the Ancient Greek and explain its meaning, as I have in fact done; otherwise, it would not be possible to describe the extremely meticulous work carried out by McCown directly on the historical manuscripts of the Testament of Solomon that he examined. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Giving your "personal interpretation" of the text, and your explanations of what you think McCown was implying in his choice of particular words, is original search. If no secondary source has given interpretations of these things, then they should be left uninterpreted in the Wikipedia article, we shouldn't write our personal opinions on it. Belbury (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

McCown is not “implying” anything in that part of the edition: the relevant material is simply printed in Ancient Greek, without interpretive commentary or paraphrase by McCown. The question is therefore how the Greek text itself is to be translated and described.

For the disputed passage, I have provided the LSJ dictionary evidence and the range of possible translations for the relevant Greek terms, rather than relying on an unsupported personal gloss.

I also contest the decision to place an original-research template over the entire Testament of Solomon section of the English Asmodeus article. At most, the dispute appears to concern the specific sentence beginning “Given the use of a κάλαμος (...)”. If that is the only passage considered problematic, I would ask what justifies tagging the entire section rather than addressing that particular sentence.

I would also ask what alternative translation or description is being proposed for the passage in variant 10, especially the sentence concerning the use of a κάλαμος. If “tickling, teasing, and poking stimulation” is considered an unacceptable description, then what reading of the Ancient Greek text and of the LSJ lexical evidence is being proposed instead?

To resolve the issue properly, I would therefore welcome review by an editor with expertise in Ancient Greek, who could examine pp. 21*–25* of McCown’s critical edition directly, including p. 22*, variant 10, and assess the Greek text, the apparatus, and the lexical evidence. That seems preferable to characterizing the translation as “personal interpretation” without first evaluating the Ancient Greek source itself. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you do not want me to write about McCown’s critical edition of the Testament of Solomon in English on Wikipedia, then create the Asmodeus article in Ancient Greek yourself, since for quite some time now you have done little but object to what I write. Create the Asmodeus article in Ancient Greek, and then we can write everything without any commentary in English, simply reproducing the Ancient Greek text—which is not McCown’s own text, but the text of the original manuscripts of the Testament of Solomon: the manuscript used as the standard source and the variant readings drawn, again, from original manuscripts.

What exactly do you mean when you say that you would leave the original sentence “uncommented” in English? McCown does not translate from Ancient Greek into English; when he analyzes the text, there is only the Ancient Greek material (in this case, the episode involving Asmodeus and Solomon runs from p. 21* to p. 25*). The references to Tobit in the fumigation passage are there and are explicit, but you have placed the template over the entire section: do you want to deprive Wikipedia readers of McCown’s analysis of the original manuscripts?

Before I started editing the article, the Testament of Solomon section said little more than that “Asmodeus admits that he hates water.” And in the section on the Talmud, it said that Asmodeus was married to Lilith in the Talmud—although Lilith does not appear in Gittin 68b, and she is not presented in either the Talmud or the Pentateuch as Adam’s “first wife,” nor, obviously, as Asmodeus’s wife.

If you want, you can make the article worse, revert everything, and go back to that. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

What I wrote would constitute “original research” if variant 10 (like everything else) were not explicitly attested in Ancient Greek and I had invented it myself, or if McCown had provided some English translation of the text—including variant 10, which is likewise taken from an original manuscript—and I had instead supplied a false or arbitrary translation of my own.

Since the Ancient Greek text is obviously attested, together with its variant readings, and since the English-language Asmodeus article is written in English rather than Ancient Greek, it is impossible not to provide a translation of the text. McCown does NOT provide one, even though the Greek text itself is of course there.

In variant 10 on p. 22*, it is not narratively plausible to imagine Solomon striking Asmodeus on the head with a marsh reed—McCown uses κάλαμος, whose primary meaning is “reed” (as shown by the LSJ short definition; see the note I added)—as a form of torture intended to force the Demon to submit to Solomon. Striking someone on the head with a reed as a means of torture is narratively implausible. For this reason, given the complete absence of any translation supplied by McCown and the presence only of the Ancient Greek text, I necessarily had to make the English meaning explicit. I have also been completely transparent and omitted nothing, providing direct links to the LSJ dictionary entry for each relevant word.

It is not that I think McCown “says” this: McCown does not say anything interpretive at all. He simply prints the Ancient Greek text and its variant readings, all drawn from different surviving original manuscripts of the Testament of Solomon. Therefore, this is absolutely not “original research,” but rather an exact translation of variant 10 on p. 22*; moreover, the rest of the passage is likewise taken from the original manuscript tradition.

That said, I have honestly grown tired of your repeated reversions, which I consider unnecessary and clearly pretextual. I will therefore wait for an editor with expertise in Ancient Greek to assess the specific contents of McCown’s critical edition of the Testament of Solomon (pp. 21*–25*). The work is in the public domain in the United States and is also available on Internet Archive, where it can be read online or downloaded as a PDF.

If an editor with expertise in Ancient Greek considers it appropriate to do so, that editor can then remove the templates. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misreading some of this, I don't have access to McCown's book so may be misunderstanding how many levels of interpretation are being made here.

Saying that a text published in a book by McCown uses the word κάλαμος and that a typical dictionary translates this as "reed", "stalk of wheat", "reed pen" seems reasonable. The further idea that it is not "narratively plausible" for Solomon to strike a demon with a reed, so they must therefore have been tickling, teasing, and poking it - if you say there is no "interpretive commentary or paraphrase" of this by McCown in his book, and this means it is your own personal reading of what the word implies, that detail doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, under WP:OR.

The question of OR doesn't require any expertise in ancient Greek, it's a matter of how Wikipedia uses sources. Shall I request a third opinion on whether such interpretation is appropriate? Belbury (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please do request a third opinion.

I would only clarify one point before that happens. My reasoning is not simply “κάλαμος means reed, therefore striking is narratively implausible, therefore it must mean tickling.” The description is based on the combination of the Greek wording in variant 10, the lexical range of the relevant terms, the effect described in the passage, and the narrative context as a whole. κάλαμος is only one part of that analysis.

I agree that if “tickling, teasing, and poking” were merely a personal imaginative gloss with no textual basis, it would not belong in the article. My point is that I do not consider it an arbitrary gloss, but a translation/description derived from the actual Greek text and the lexical evidence. That is precisely why I think it would be useful for a third editor to look not only at WP:OR in the abstract, but also at the wording of McCown’s apparatus itself (p.21*-25*), especially p. 22*, variant 10.

There is also, technically, a secondary source in existence: I have written a separate analysis of this passage and published it on Internet Archive. However, it is in Italian, it is my own work, and I obviously cannot cite my own publication on Wikipedia as an independent secondary source in support of my own edit. So I am not proposing that as a solution.

A third opinion therefore seems entirely appropriate. I would simply ask that the editor reviewing the issue examine the Greek passage, the apparatus, and the cited LSJ entries as well as the WP:OR question, because otherwise the dispute risks being reduced to a policy question without first establishing what the source text actually says. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've requested feedback at Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Since there's a lot of discussion about the single "tickling" sentence above, I'd note to the reviewer that the scope of the issue is the full section, which seems to include several inferences beyond what the cited source texts say. The section was previously a short 87-word paragraph, so nearly all of the current section content was written by Neoscolastica.

For context my upthread comment about a chatbot refers to Neoscolastica saying on their talk page that they have used AI as a drafting and language-assistance tool. Belbury (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no objection to the third-opinion reviewer examining the entire Testament of Solomon section, although I think the most important point to evaluate is still variant 10 on p. 22*. In that passage, translating the action as Asmodeus being “struck on the head with a reed” is grammatically possible, but -I guess- narratively implausible in that context, given the object involved, the surrounding Greek wording, and the effect described. That is why I believe this specific passage deserves especially careful review against the Greek text and the LSJ evidence.

As for the reference to AI: I used AI only as an additional aid in working through the Ancient Greek and in drafting or refining the English. I could simply have omitted mentioning that, but I chose to be transparent about it. The article was written by me, not by AI systems, and the substantive content, manuscript references, page references, Greek terminology, and dictionary evidence were checked against the cited sources.

More generally, I still consider the original-research template over the entire Testament of Solomon section to be completely unjustified. If there are specific statements in the section that are thought to go beyond the cited sources, they should be identified and discussed individually. Tagging the whole section seems disproportionate, especially when much of it is based directly on McCown’s Greek text, manuscript apparatus, explicit references to Tobit, and the lexical evidence cited in the notes.

I am therefore happy to wait for the third opinion, but I would ask that the reviewer examine the actual Greek material in McCown—especially pp. 21*–25* and variant 10 on p. 22*—rather than treating this only as an abstract policy question. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Just as Oscar Wilde does not explicitly write that Dorian Gray sold his soul to the Devil, and just as Alessandro Manzoni does not explicitly write that Griso betrayed Don Rodrigo, McCown—who is not even writing a narrative—uses the standard text of one of the surviving original Ancient Greek manuscripts as his base text, while recording and numbering on the same page the textual variants, likewise written in Ancient Greek and drawn from other surviving historical and original manuscripts of the Testament of Solomon.

However, all of this is presented without any paraphrase or commentary by McCown, either in Ancient Greek or in English, and there is no English translation, commentary, or paraphrase at all. Since the entire passage is written in Ancient Greek, it is honestly difficult to understand what the objection is: variant 10 on p. 22*, attested in manuscript L, is printed by McCown. I have merely translated it and supplied links to the relevant dictionary entries.

Only the explicit references to the Book of Tobit, together with very little else in the section devoted to the variants, are given in the Latin alphabet in the footnotes, and even there without any commentary or paraphrase. Everything else is solely in Ancient Greek, without any explanation or paraphrase.

Since McCown is analyzing the surviving original Ancient Greek manuscripts, I believe that this material constitutes a substantial enrichment of the Wikipedia article on Asmodeus. Neoscolastica Ontologica Superiore (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)