Talk:The devil is in the details

Who came first?

In my understanding the expression "God is in the details" in architecture was "created" by Mies van der Rohe as a "paradoxal overthrowing" (I apologize for my approximative english) of the German popular expression "The devil is in the details", which seems to exist before. "The devil..." is probably the origin; "God..." is Mies's architecture-specific "overthrowing" of the original expression, in "support" of his attention to detail. As a matter of fact, it is more likely to see shared popular culture generating a field-specific (in this case architecture) answer, rather than a field-specifc expression generating a shared popular culture answer (which would be more like the tail wagging the dog, don't you think?). 213.174.127.3 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

According to a search on Google Books Ngram viewer a search on Google Books Ngram viewer, the German version of the expression ("Der Teufel steckt im Detail") gains in popularity in the 1960s, contemporaneously with the English expression. And in no form does it appear earlier than 1951. Based on this, I don't think Mies was overthrowing an earlier expression. It's a bit unusual, maybe, for a field-specific phrase to gain widespread popularity, but not unheard of. And Mies was by all accounts highly influential as an architect, so if any architect was going to spawn an expression with a second life in popular culture, it would be him. --The Big Eye (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • Support redirect I have already merged the relevant contents [5] ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, it is the devil who resides in the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Origins, variations, and alternative meanings can be properly treated within the article. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:18, 18 July 2010 (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.

Requested move 15 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The devil is in the detail → The devil is in the details – Ngrams shows that the plural form is much more common. (Note that "the" had to be omitted in the query because Ngrams doesn't allow more than 5 words per term.) It is also the form the article itself uses most frequently. Rublov (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, this could be a noncontroversial move, common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and User:Randy Kryn, I have always heard it in the plural form. JIP | Talk 22:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Should it be "The Devil" rather than "The devil"? That is a proper name, isn't it? I see that this would correspond to the title this article had exactly 11 years ago (when it was declared that there was no consensus to change it). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ngrams shows that the lowercase version is far more common. --Macrakis (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have always thought that "devil" refers to malevolent deities in general, whereas "Satan" refers to the one in the Abrahamic religions specifically. JIP | Talk 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Question -- was this once moved away from the proposed name? In the discussion above from a decade ago, the title seemed to have been "details."--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Originally the page was titled "God Is In The Details" and was about a TV episode. Then it was altered to be about the idiom and moved to "God is in the Details". Subsequently it was moved to "God is in the detail" (where "detail" became singular), "Devil is in the details" (plural again), "The devil is in the details", "The Devil is in the details", The Devil is in the detail" (singular again), and finally to "The devil is in the detail". Rublov (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.  Mysterymanblue  21:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.