Talk:Evil demon

Possible subtopics

• Henchmen
• Telling the hero your evil plan only to have him foil it
• Capturing the villain but somehow failing to kill him.
• real life models for evil villains
• Parodies (Dr. Evil), Scorpio in the Simpsons, Mr. Burns.
• Alliances among evil geniuses
• Organisations of evil geniuses (eg SPECTRE)
• Do evil geniuses ever die or do they just fake their deaths?
• getting good help - why are evil geniuses always surrounded by inept assistants?

AndyL 02:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Further discussion of this belongs at Talk:Villain. Uncle G 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

interesting idea

Could the "evil deceiver" imagined by Descartes be considered a prototype to the concept of a supervillain? Sdr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.65.197 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-13 05:49:32

• Yeah, interesting idea -- would it quality as original research, though? Neilc 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ironically, it is the one thing that isn't original research. It was the prior content of this article that was a morass of original research. It has now been replaced with what was suggested by 68.232.65.197 (talk · contribs) (a suggestion repeated by others on this talk page, below) almost two years ago. Uncle G 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Stewie Caption

Does it really need to have that much exposition? I think simply identifying it as "Stewie Griffin, evil genius from Family Guy" or some such would be sufficient. 66.230.80.56 09:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

does dick cheney deserve to be on this page? is't this more a matter of someones opinion rather than encyclopedic?

Bait and switch?

I saw the section headed "Origins", and thought, "oh, neat, an examination of the origins of the Evil Genius archetype." What did I get? "Evil geniuses have commonly had difficult childhoods." Unencyclopedic and smacks of original research. Heather 02:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• The whole thing was original research. It is better to grow sourced content in villain. Uncle G 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Listing cleanup

I cleaned up the list a bit by creating categories. I really find a LONG list of stuff with no order other than alphabetical to be of little use in an article.

I also removed the following for the following reasons:

• Maximillian Junpei from Double Oh Unkie Sam
• Removed: Joker from Batman. Insane, but rarely referred to as a genius.
• Removed: Tareeq from Octopus Overlords. This appears to be a reference to a member of a web forum. I do not think that this qualifies as encyclopedic content.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavlin (talk • contribs) 2006-10-02 22:39:46

Suggestions for inclusion/deletion?

I thought Stewie Griffin deserved to be mentioned here (or it may just be my rabid obsession with Family Guy talking, but who cares). Kakashi-sensei 13:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why Mandy from The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy has been included and I rather think the Delightful Children from Down the Lane are too subservient to their adult superiors to be included. Evil geniuses normally just work for themselves and if they serve a higher power they're plotting to overthrow them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.42 (talk • contribs) 21 October 2006

There are several on the listing that I am not sure would qualify as an "Evil Genius" but I am willing to entertain the idea. However, I do think that items without their own Wikipedia entry should be removed until they are significant enough to justfy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavlin (talk • contribs) 2006-10-02 22:39:46

Definition source?

This article makes a definition on the evil genius archtype with no background source.

As the term suggests, evil geniuses are characters of great intelligence who choose to use their knowledge for antisocial ends. To qualify as an evil genius, one must use cunning to craft complex plots that cause havoc and destruction; criminal tendencies are a must. Their schemes often hinge on mundane details that heroes can exploit, foiling their plots at the climax of the story.

Who is defining the archetype this way? Unless we can get a verifiable definition, something enough to separate it clearly from a Mad scientist or a Mastermind, it might be best served as a a subsection of the villain article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavlin (talk • contribs) 2006-10-02 22:39:46

• Discussion of evil geniuses as villains is indeed now in villain, and all relevant links now point there. This article is now about the subject that has been discussed several times on this talk page. Uncle G 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I added the Original Research tag back to this article. As there are not cited sources and the information listed here is based on personal interpetations, this meets several definitions of original research. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source.Slavlin 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you after reviewing it and considering that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability and NOT truth. The evil genius is a notable character, there is no doubt about it. But if all we can come up with is a list since no one has verifiable sources to back up the rest of the article maybe a trip to AfD to evaluate what should happen to this article would be a good idea. I still have no reason to doubt what is in the article but I agree that verifiability is the central issue here. One thing is certain... we cannot have articles sitting with OR tags on them for months without anyone doing anything to have the tag removed. An alternative way may be to perform a massive cutdown of the article to a bare minimum that we can verify with sources. MartinDK 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think another viable alternative would be to mention the Evil Genius but migrate the rest of this to another wikiproject. I would say that, with all of the Evil Genius, Evil Laugh, etc. we may have enough for a Wikibook item.Slavlin 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The NOR policy is a pathetic joke that just gets in the way of editing Wikipedia, as are most policies. Deletionists just use them to gain power. WP:IGNORE was established to keep policy fanatics in their proper place but ironically it's largely "ignored" these days. --81.154.74.198 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

veronica mars is animated now?

coulda fooled me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.219.16 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Disambiguation Required

There's the Cartesian usage that's most important! Can someone else do the appropriate work? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Uncle G 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories for inclusion/deletion response

Actually I think the Joker could class as an evil genius as despite being criminally insane he is still diabolically intelligent and uses his twisted genius to complete spectacular crimes and on the odd occasion and attempt to take over Gotham/the world. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.38 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-03 17:57:50

Evil Genius

The last information I received about the origins of "Evil Genius" I believe came from Descartes, referencing the act of casting constant doubt on a subject. However I am still unsure on this information since it has been so long since I read on this subject. Can anyone help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.77.238 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

• Done. Uncle G 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Genus and Humor

I tried very hard to find any references that I could think of to add articles on the "How to be a Villan" and "Evil Overlord on a Budget" items, as I personally like those a lot myself. I tried Evil Genius + Humor and + Film Studies and + Books, but I kept getting sources that appear to be unreliable. I would love to have them in here, but I can't find anything that would relate them to this article explicitly. I feel like there would need to be some comentary on the relation of the books to the archtype, but I could not find anything. Slavlin 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• See villain#Further reading, Evil Overlord List#External links, and evil lair#External links for where they actually belong. Uncle G 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hume and Empiricism

I'm suprised that "Evil Genius" was an idea by Descartes considering it's much more in tune with Hume's empiricist thoughts. Hume concludes, for example, that "that our inductive practices have no rational foundation, for no form of reason will certify it." Hume is basically arguing that we have no way to be certain of our senses, which is in line with the "Evil Genius" idea. Am I wrong on this or should Hume be added into the article? (RossF18 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

24.118.227.213 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

This article was changed from a archetype of fiction to some philosopy garbage that has NOTHING to do with evil geniuses.24.118.227.213 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there. Calm down. First, please refrain from calling anything "garbage", especially without reading the article and realizing that this is the proper title of the article and the accompanying phylosophical information. Second, if you just check the top of the page, it clearly states For the recurring staple in fiction, see villain, meaning all you have to do is go to Villain and you'll reach the subject you were likely trying to reach. --RossF18 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I usually don't insult articles, but this one is so absurd that I chouldn't help it. Second, I checked "villian", it doesn't have much if anything on evil geniuses. Third, this article USED to have a plenty of information on evil geniuses, but someone changed it to a philosophical article; thus making it unlikely that any new information will be added in the future. I could easily look at the history pages to get the former article, but I don't want to be stuck with that forever. Forth, I also want an explaination for this change which, in my eyes, is pointless.24.118.227.213 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evil genius is a philosphical concept of Descartes. It is it's name. Thus, the article is called evil genius, i.e., the name of the Descartes' concept. What is so pointless about that? If you don't mean villain, what type of evil geniuses do you mean? An evil genius from the literature and movies is a type of villain. If you want to add evil geniuse to the villain article, go right ahead. The actual Evil Genius, however, is a philosophical concept. That's why the article was changed from a villain type of evil genius and the actual correct evil genius concept. Also, you might not think that calling something garbabe is not insulting, but it is and the fact that you don't do it a lot is no excuse. You either do it, or you don't. You keep saying that the change is pointless, but you give no reasons. Evil geniuses that you're referring to are villains from literature (such as Moriarti) or from movies and thus belongs as a subdivision of that article. Evil genius itself, however, is, again, a philosophical concept. Given that evil genius is a philosphical concept and the cite was changed to discribe the philosophical concept, how is the change pointless? It was changed to reflect what the name means in reality, not the villain type of evil genius or do you mean some other type of evil genius. If genius is good, evil genius is evil and is a villain, what's pointless about not having that information on the philosophical page. --RossF18 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I DO mean villian, and this is what this is all about. If your going to put a philosopical concept for evil genius, either add it to the original page or create independent page for it, rather than eliminate the villian archetype page and replace it with philosopy.24.118.227.213 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the villain archetype page is now under Villain as you've seen. I must be missing something to what you're saying because if you meant villain and there is now the villian archetype page under Villain, then what's the problem? An evil genius as a type of villain should be discussed as a section in the Villain article, and evil genius as a separate phylosophical concept should be discussed separately as a it is now on this page. I don't think any of the information on this page before that referenced a villain type of evil genius was deleated. It was moved to the villain page, which you admit is the type of evil genius you meant. Again, what's the problem? If the evil genius you were looking is the villain type and that info was actually moved to the villain page of encyclopedia, nothing is deleated, everything was just put in its proper place. If evil genius is a type of villain it shouldn't get a separate page just for it, it should be a subsection of evil genius. Evil genius as a phylosophical concept is a seaprate thing so it does get a separate page. --RossF18 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that, so never mind then. I'm not ashamed to admit that I was misinformed on this matter and I apologize if you considered me bit rude. I guess evil genius was added after I last saw the villain page, which was after I had started this debate and I hadn't seen it since then.24.118.227.213 08:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --RossF18 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename Article

Being an undergraduate philosophy major, I have read much commentary on Meditations on First Philosophy, written extensively on its major themes/ideas, and read the text so many times that I practically have it memorized. I have never heard/read of the "evil daemon" of Meditation I referred to as an "evil genius." Judging from the comments above, this article may have at one time been about the title character of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and the like. The Cartesian "evil daemon" is drastically different from what is colloquially assumed to be the meaning of "evil genius." For clarity and accuracy, I suggest that the article be renamed to "evil daemon" or "cartesian evil daemon," and that "evil genius" be redirected to the villain article. Lwnf360 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Can you explain the difference between the evil genius/evil daemon and the deus deceptor/dieu trompeur? Robert K S 08:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• If you have never heard it called that, then you have not read widely enough on the subject. You can start by reading the very first two sources cited in the article, which call it an evil genius on the pages given in the citations. Please read more widely on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• I concur with the student. Some translations may use 'evil genius' instead of 'evil daemon', but my translation is the latter. Some references by later philosophers also use 'evil daemon'. That's what I searched for. Perhaps Uncle G is the evil daemon and has altered my perceptions by changing his name in the title of those articles he mentions. Does that violate the original source guidelines? You'd think if he wanted to hide his identity, he could just change the name to 'Nice Genius'. Since he hasn't after a few hundred years, either he doesn't exist, isn't omnipotent, or isn't a genius. Any way you cut it, the title should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.107.159 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is just contributing to further confusion about the term

An evil daemon is not the same thing as an evil demon. First of all, the term "daemon," chosen by Descartes because the Classical Greeks used it in a particular way, needs its own page. An evil daemon should be discussed on that page.

An evil genius is not an evil daemon. An evil daemon is a supernatural entity, a category of being that the Greeks believed existed. An evil genius is a human with extraordinary powers. Everyone knows this! Now - someone has to work to show what everyone knows, in these articles.

I would suggest that first a good article on Daemon is written if one does not exist (there are dozens of articles on the Greek term that could be used as references - JSTOR/Google Scholar has them). Then, just put "Evil Daemon" on that page as a subcategory (redirect there if needed).

Then do an article on "Evil Geniuses." if "Evil Demon" is also needed (to talk about comics, movies, etc.), then spell it that way and do it that way. Do not refer to an ancient Greek term in an article and then complain that someone edits the article to talk about this very specific and illuminating topic from Classical Greece. It wasn't just a philosophical term, either, the idea of daemons and their doings appears outside Greek philosophy; it was part of Greek religion and worldview as well. Classical Greek project (or its equivalent) needs to be in on this. In no way is this a high level importance article for philosophy! Not sure it's even mid, but we'll compromise.--Levalley (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the use of the modifier "evil" is responsible for the confusion. I propose disambiguation for "evil demon." Disambiguation/pollution of "daemon" and its modifiers is misleading as the daemon (descartes) is necessarily an entity but not evil by prerequisite; it is an attribution. Hence, I think evil daemon should redirect to a main topic on descartes demon, evil demon should disambiguate, and that daemon should be a stand alone topic. Subtopics on the attributions placed on descartes demon by others may also be of some help.

"the term "daemon," chosen by Descartes because the Classical Greeks used it in a particular way..."

He wrote it in Latin, no? Ergo... Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

Could someone archive the merge discussion. The whole merge discussion went on for a while and then deleted without any comment. Find it here please: Wikipedia talk:Philosophy/Notice Board--RossF18 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Change the article name back to Evil genius

Google Books...

descartes evil genius

About 7,240 results

descartes evil daemon

About 125 results (Did you mean: descartes evil demon)

descartes evil demon

About 4,690 results

descartes evil "dæmon"

only 2 results! (and one's an OCR error, s/b "Damon")

The article should not have been renamed. Why the English word "evil" and the Latin word "daemon" ??? Certainly not because that's what people usually say in English.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

Page moved to evil demon. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Evil daemon → Evil genius – Renaming the article Evil daemon was clearly a mistake and favoring Evil dæmon is absurd. Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Qualified Oppose. I don't think "genius" is the right word to use - it may be the closest in _spelling_ to the Latin (genium aliquem malignum - incidentally, I think we should mention Descartes' original wording somewhere in the article), but the (modern) English _meaning_ of "genius" is completely misleading (see most of the comments above). However, I agree that "daemon" isn't ideal, and isn't supported by the sources. "Demon" is better-supported and clear in meaning. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy uses the French Malin génie (as does, understandably, the French Wikipedia), and this term is likely to be familiar to anyone interested in philosophy - this would be my primary suggestion, with "Evil demon" as second. If, however, there is a consensus for "genius", can I suggest Evil genius (Descartes), so that people looking for Dr Evil won't end up here? 80.254.147.84 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions all around. I have no problem with evil demon... (safe to say it's more popular in English than Malin génie). Judging from the Stewie Griffin discussion above, I wonder if the article wasn't actually about the Dr Evil type to begin with... Shall I go ahead and change the proposal to Evil demon?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd Support Evil demon, but let's wait for some more opinions. Tevildo (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2011 (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.

Fix double redirect

{{edit protected|Cartesian demon}} Please change the redirect to Evil demon, to remove the double redirect. Thanks. —mc10 (t/c) 04:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It has one link from article space and no history of abuse. Why is it still edit protected... why ask why? Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• It was protected because of pagemove vandalism - that was a while ago, so I've reduced to semiprotect. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Devil

Quite obvious he's philosophizing about Satan, considering he was a Christian, that this was his theory of the Devil should be included in this article? 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds, that is, of the infidels, that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, which is the image of God, should not shine unto them. Bozo33 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

This article needs expansion about the evil demon, not just a deus deceptor section. Bozo33 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge

The influence of the Sacred Mysteries and gnosticism on Descartes and other philosophers often goes unexplored in academia despite rumors of Rosicrucian influence on many figures. Many analogies can be made. Specifically in this case though, consider that modern gnostic ideas about the Demiurge especially in chaos magic involve it being a grade/incarnation of God or Demon that created this physical world with the power of the God most high. It seeks to imprison us in the material realm and in sin and is often viewed as malevolent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.185.169 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)