Talk:The devil is in the details

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Stargate SG1

Teryl Rothery of Stargate SG1 fame is starring in this episode and plans to "cross over", because "Daniel" is waiting there. The name (Daniel) could be pure coincidence or an inside reference to Stargate SG1's Daniel Jackson

K.satirli 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well known phrase

"God is in the Detail" should be an article about the popular english idiom and not a redirect to a tv episode named after the phrase... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rival expression

God is in the details does make sense if what you treasure is the little things (details), or something. It's even described in the wiki page. Any motivation for why the devil quote would be more popular? (Also, is it the originating one, otherwise devil'd be a popular alternative and imo god listed as main thing.) I was following links around and followed a "god link" from Ludvig Mies, which surprises one to end up here. Also it makes no sense to call the article "devil is in the details" if most of it is about god in the details and the rest being stuff you changed. IMO change back or provide motivation. 85.226.0.106 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term God is in the detail is not notable, I am sure. To me, the real expression has always been the The Devil is in the details, which also has more hits on Google. [1] [2] Incidentally, it isn't appropriate at all to replace the the Devil by God when we know that the devil quote is much more widespread. ADM (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC

Fair enough. :) 85.226.0.106 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if to you the devil expression is more notable. The original expression is "God in the detail." The article even cites proof of this. Google hits is hardly a way to prove notability, and both forms of the expression are used in popular media such as televison, film, novels, etc so yes "God is in the details" is notable and just as notable as "Devil in the details" I really don't think your personal preference should have a played a role in moving the page and that it should go back to it's original form. In fact, your explanation in moving the page reveals your bias "moved God is in the detail to Devil is in the details: the devil quote is way more popular, and it doesn't make sense to switch the quote for god unless unless you are some kind of satanist". What does it have anything to do with satanism. The saying refers to paying attention to the details. The original saying (with God) implies details are important, when the idea that a trick might be in the details it became popular to replace god with devil to denote a negative connotation to the details. I'm going to request the page get moved back.Flygongengar (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret societies

Regarding the expression the devil is in the details, I've noticed that the expression has been applied to secret societies in order to express the idea that secret societies are in fact diabolical, precisely because they like to hide in the details, trying to infiltrate social institutions through secretive means. [3] ADM (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that The devil is in the details be renamed and moved to God is in the detail.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

The Devil is in the details → God is in the detail — A little while ago this page was moved from "God is in the detail" to "The Devil is in the details". I propose that the page be moved back. For one, the mover never discussed the move and the reasons given are unsatisfactory. The mover claims the original expression is not notable (without proving this) and gave a very biased reasoning: "moved God is in the detail to Devil is in the details: the devil quote is way more popular, and it doesn't make sense to switch the quote for god unless unless you are some kind of satanist"... "To me, the real expression has always been the The Devil is in the details"... "it isn't appropriate at all to replace the the Devil by God". As the mover himself isn't a reliable source or historian of phrases, his opinion of the validity of either saying isn't notable and shouldn't have played a role in the move. Second the idea that to use the original expression is akin to satanism is laughable at best. The fact is, as the sources used in the article prove, the God version is the original version and the devil is a variant of that. Secondly, google hits isn't a reliable measure of anything's notability and both forms of the expression are regularly used in popular media (film, televison, etc. and I can provide numerous examples of both) making one form no more notable than the other. In fact, the current version of the article has inaccuracies not present in the previous version. One it lists the God form as originating in 1925, when there is a form (cited and sourced) appearing before/by 1880. Secondly, it portrays the God form as a variant of the Devil form, when in actuality the God form is the older expression and the Devil form is a variant of it (again cited in the sources of the page before the move). Finally, many of the sourced facts on this page are actually about the God form, yet are maintained in the page since the move and presented as if about the Devil form. Since the God form is the original version and the page seemed only moved based on a random editor's opinion/whim (without proper discussion) I say it should be moved back and restored to a form similar to before the move ([[4]]Flygongengar (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter in the slightest which idiom came first, nor which is a variant of which. The sole consideration is which one is the most common title for the subject as regards our readership. The present title is quite plainly in more common use in modern English, to the point where the original phrase would not necessarily be recognised as referring to the same concept. It's fine where it is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The expression is 'devils', at least in common, modern usage. A hatnote mentioning the old usage would be fine, so would a re-direct--but the proposed name would be confusing. Just a hunch that Flygongengar is trying to chalk a small win for goodness in the universe; admirable, but it will have to happen in the universe first before Wikipedia can reliably pick up on it. Ocaasi (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On Wikipedia we chose article titles based on common use in English, not on what the original German may have been 90 years ago. In addition God is in the detail should redirect to this page, rather than the rather pathetic little article that has been substituted for the original redirect. We do not get round redirects by throwing our dummy out of the cot! Skinsmoke (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support redirect I have already merged the relevant contents [5] ^walk victor falk^talk 15:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, it is the devil who resides in the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Origins, variations, and alternative meanings can be properly treated within the article. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]