![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've been reorganizing some of the sections and doing general editing - removing some non-NPOV material, wikifying, etc. More needs to be done, such as filling out some stub sections. Aleta 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am unable to find any reliable information for this section either online or in what I would consider the reasonable literary sources. I am removing the section without prejudice toward recreation if someone who knows where to find verifiable data comes along. ◄ Zahakiel ► 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the various articles about individual demons, can you please give cites about where the information on these demons comes from? Most of us don't believe in demons, but are willing to accept statements about demons as mythological / fictional figures, or statements that someone else believed demons to be real. It would be useful to say "According to the Grimoire of X by Y, the demon Z is..." -- The Anome 07:26 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
For one Satanists and Lucifarians are two different groups, whith opposing dogmas. And for two; this is in no way a patently Christian topic.
3:56 15 July 2005 (ZEBURN)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
why it is worse than Necromancer ? why it is deleted from here, and from demonologist article ? it should be either here or in demonologist article (which is now redircet) Idot ( talk) 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The article on Necromancy has a section on necromancy in video games because the practices and goals of necromancy in fantasy entertainment (e.g. raise zombie armies using evil magic) are extremely different from the historical forms of necromancy (e.g. trying to talk to dead people for information). Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ian... the "in fiction" section was completely and totally pointless, and so have removed it. If "Idot" wants to restore it he/she should take the time to get a consensus of editors here to agree to it instead of just edit warring to put it back. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
All of your arguments over semantics (whether summoning demons is a goal or a method) completely miss the point. The introductory statements in the article pretty clearly define real-life demonologists as theologians, not sorcerors. Here's a reality check: Civil War historians are not trying to summon Robert E. Lee, astronomers are not trying to summon planets, and real-life, legitimate demonologists are not trying to summon demons. Sorry if that contradicts your own personal misconceptions, but it's true. Just like elves and pixies don't exist. Demonologists study the history of demonic beliefs in the contexts of history, literature, religion, etc. It is an academic endeavor, not a supernatural one. "Both fictional and real demonology involves attempting to summon demons"? Somebody makes this astoundingly ignorant comment and then the people who argue with him don't even think to point out how insane that is? My god! Go back to your D&D games and leave editing Wikipedia to people with some concept of reality. Minaker ( talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I stand corrected. I'd sit corrected, but I can't sit down 'cause of that damn stick. Minaker ( talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, though, I do apologize for my acharacteristically antagonistic attitude in the above comments. I can get pretty aggressive on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I did so without even the slightest provocation; the fault is entirely mine. I may disagree with some of your statements, but it's no excuse for breaking Wikipedia's guidelines on civility, nor for specifically aiming the attack at you. Furthermore, this is a clear example of me mocking what I do not understand, so I apologize for that too. (From now on, I'll stick to mocking the things I do understand! That gives me very little to mock.) All joking aside, though, I do apologize for offending you. Minaker ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I accept your apology. Its nice to see someone reasonable on the internet. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[long section of copyright violation text from the publication removed]
Uh, no... multiple people told you that section doesn't belong, so quoting an unreasonably long bit of text from a copyrighted publication doesn't change that. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Now, once a conflict is going, we have choices. Suppose an edit is made against consensus. Suppose that you've reverted it once, but then it's made again. The person who makes the edit a second time, without first establishing consensus, is edit warring. If you revert them again, then you're also edit warring. You can do that, without breaking any "rules". However, if you refrain from reverting instead, and decide to take a different path, then you can get where you're going with less difficulty.
If a policy "allows" strategy A, but strategy B gets you where you want to go more smoothly, then go with strategy B. In this case, that means, yes, letting a bad edit stand for a little while, thus occupying an excellent position above reproach from which you build your case on the talk page. Then, when outsiders come along, they'll be more inclined to agree with you, and they'll probably make your edit for you. If you're both reverting each other, then a newcomer to the scene sees two tendentious edit warriors. This is simply a fact of life on Wikipedia. Our policies do not require you to recognize this fact, but if you do, you'll be happier and more effective. This is really all I was trying to say.
You can do it the hard way, or you can do it the easy way. I've seen a lot of editors come to grief doing it the hard way. However, experience is the only teacher that mankind will learn from, so don't let me stand in your way. You almost certainly have my support, and if you play ball, I'll make the edit for you, unless you decide to chase me off by talking about how you're "allowed" to revert. I care very little about what's "allowed", and very much about what works.
Does that make sense? Ball's in your court. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
so, your bould positions mean that neutraility is disputed ( Idot ( talk) 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC))
Demonolatry has been merged in, to form a small mention of occult and ceremonial magic's use of demonology. We can't really deny it exists at all.:) Merkinsmum 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to bring back the article on demonolatry? Seems to me like this was the action of one person, there was no consensus vote to approve the merger, which is within Wikipedia guidelines. As stated before, demonology is the study of demons, demonolatry is the worship of demons. Perhaps articles on theology should be merged with Christianity? 209.244.7.239 ( talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on Demonology (occultism) does not match the material on the page Demonology (occultism). Either material needs to be added to the page, or the link should be removed and possibly the section retitled - is occultism the best word to use given the lack of a precise definition? Occultism can refer to christian occultism which is already covered in the christian demonology section. Perhaps 'demonology in other faiths' would be better. There is far too little information about this here - there should be some basic info about belief systems and the number of adherants to such faiths Halon8 ( talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The article appears to be about Christian demonology, not about demonology in any more generic sense
I consider myself in some sense a demonologist, but I am not Christian
Indeed, I count the Christian deity amongst the host of demons
Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers
Then what I wonder is the sort of prejudice that seems place demons below the rank of gods, as in "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds"?
I tend to see gods themselves as essentially demonic beings
Or is there a good generic term to cover both?
Laurel Bush (
talk)
16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Daimon does mean spirit, but demon usually doesn't get used the same way as daimon. Spirit would cover both demon and deity, so I guess spirituality would be what covers both. It isn't a specifically Christian view that places demons below deities, it comes from Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and is also found in Islam and Sikhism. "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds." A malevolent deity could be discussed under both demonology and theology, but generally demon refers to spirits that don't get much, if any, worship. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Daimon looks to me like just another way of spelling demon
Perhaps monotheistic demonologies (plural) is what the article is about, demonologies of monotheistic religions
Laurel Bush (
talk)
11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Daimon is the root for Demon, but colloquial use has separated the words (language is a living thing). The article does include Buddhist and Hindu demonologies (perhaps reading the article as it currently is would help). The reason I didn't get into those is that Buddhism isn't focused on worship and Hinduism... well, the "lack of worshippers" bit does work for beings such as many of the Asuras (Mitra is worshipped, but most of the rest aren't). Can you find a source for demons being viewed by a notable group as equal to deities or deities being demons? Keep in mind that this would be a minority view in demonology, so the article wouldn't be rewritten much. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to regard worshippers as possessed by demons
Gods seem to me to be just especially powerful demons, who tend to characterise rival god-demons as less than or worse than themselves
"Spirituality" no, by the way, "spiritology" perhaps
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So is this entirely about your POV instead of sources? This isn't a general discussion board but a discussion board pertaining to improving the article, which means it has to be sourced material. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It is about whether my POV is represented anywhere in any recognisable shape or form, either in this article or elsewhere, or is precluded by historical anti-heretical bias
Laurel Bush (
talk)
18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Are there sources for your POV? If there are, then they could be incorporated into the article. If there aren't any demonological texts or works that reflect your POV, then the issue certainly isn't any sort of bias on the part of everyone else. It's like, I consider Romeo and Juliet to be a parody of love stories, but because I don't have sources for that view, the article saying the play is about love doesn't mean everybody else is biased. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers
You have at least helped me to invent the term spiritology
More to the point perhaps is the fact that the so-called Demonology article seems to me now to be more about religious demonology (or religious spiritology?), demonology developed by worshippers, who see their favoured demons/spirits as gods
By historical bias I mean historical religious and semantic bias long predating Wikipedia
Laurel Bush (
talk)
11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If I think that the word shark refers to a small furry rodent lives in trees and hides nuts, is everyone that refers to that animal as a squirrel biased, or is it me? Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you accept that the demonology of the article is religious in origin?
Laurel Bush (
talk)
11:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Belief in the existance of spirits is a religious belief, not a scientific statement. Ian.thomson ( talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can not accept the possibility of non-religious demonology or spiritology (such not dependent on worship of any particular demon or spirit, then there is your bias
Also, I now know I am not the first to use the term spiritology
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Where is worship mentioned at all in the statement "Belief in the existance of spirits is a religious belief, not a scientific statement"...? Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology aren't about worship, and most monotheists believe there are a variety of spirits they do not worship. And again, if I think that the word shark refers to a small furry rodent lives in trees and hides nuts, is everyone that refers to that animal as a squirrel biased, or is it me? Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If religion includes a god or gods, there is worship (or, at least, this is implied by "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds")
Whether Buddhism, in some of its forms (in which references to dieties or other spirits may be quite absent), is really a religion is debatable
I do not know about Jainism and Scientology
Spiritology, by the way is now a redirect to
Al G. Manning
Seems he uses the term, but I know very little about his work
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The Buddha frequently refered to gods (Devas particularly), but Buddhism doesn't worship them because they're in the same boat as us. Buddhism is full of faith based metaphysical claims about the soul and the universe, so it is considered a religion by religious scholars. There is a philosophy that the Buddha expounded (usually refered to as Buddhism as well) which many say can be taken separately. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If I am not careful, by the way, I might start believing in an amphibious normally arboreal shark demon capable of garnering hazel nuts which have fallen into the well of Sinann
Perhaps another manifestation of my own demonic being
And it seems to me now that "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds" actually implies that gods are demons but for rank
Fewer worshippers and . . .
Laurel Bush (
talk)
15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe the term demon is non Christian in origin
Christianity has given it a meaning which may not be appropriate in other contexts
Laurel Bush (
talk)
10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The Christian god is a powerful demon who has neutralised one host of demons while stigmatising the rest?
Laurel Bush (
talk)
12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this: Prejudice? Erm, in all accounts, the author's deity usually wins. 71.234.123.137 ( talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I broke away the Hinduism and Buddhism demonology sections, and expanded slightly on both. They are very much related however, with the former exerting a great influence over the latter. It's possible that I shouldn't have split them. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the NPOV tag necessary at this stage? Does anyone intend to fix the perceived problems? -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
More to the point, is there any likelihood of an NPOV anyway, given the subject matter and the narrow diversity of its practitioners? ExLegeLibertas ( talk) 12:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't care that discussion of the topic is not allowed, this is too funny:
If Christians believe that "holding fast to a particular belief and refusing to listen to reason" is posession, then all Christians are posessed! ROFL.
The article is written unapologetically from the point of view of an occultist. A more balanced approach would be to not minimize so strongly the Christian view on this patently Christian topic.
I find the placement of this article into Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity unnatural. If WikiProject Charismatic Christianity wants it (which I also find quaint) that must be up to their members to decide, but I certainly do not think demonology is a central part of their curriculum. __ meco 07:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is agonestic even a word? Deep Alexander ( talk) 08:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked the source for the following statement: "The Talmud declares that there are 7,405,926 demons, divided in 72 companies." The source is a generalist web page, not particularly scholarly, and what it says is this: " Johann Weyer wrote a book describing Hell: Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. He accepted the Talmud's estimate that there are exactly 7,405,926 demons, grouped into 72 companies. His book described the hierarchical structure of Hell. Although it was intended as a joke and a criticism of worldly hierarchies, it was eagerly analyzed by generations of ceremonial magicians who relied on it for source material." The word "accepted" implies that Weyer, a 16th-century occultist, actually saw this in the Talmud, but how are we to know whether this is true? The rest of the paragraph throws Weyer into doubt as a source. At best, this is third-hand documentation. It is (dubiously) verification that Weyer made the statement (did anybody check the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum?), but not verification that it is contained in the Talmud. A better source would be a scholar who actually cites the Talmudic passage. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states that "[Demonology] is the branch of theology relating to supernatural beings who are not gods." Given the obvious morphological derivation of "theology," it seems to me that theology must by definition be about gods. There may be a word that encompasses the study of all supernatural beings, but "theology" isn't it.
2warped@gmail.com 68.36.147.128 ( talk) 07:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Demonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe the demon malika was the young no err ma Jean I found by greyhound Priestabbyvanquish12 ( talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Demonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
How does one "study" things that don't exist? 2600:6C5A:6780:265D:64BC:2EA2:7432:7C6C ( talk) 08:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Demonology is the study of demons or beliefs about demons. For most of human history, have not most people held some sort of belief in evil spirits? Not saying they're right, but did they or did they not believe in them?
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Carolyn1218.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've been reorganizing some of the sections and doing general editing - removing some non-NPOV material, wikifying, etc. More needs to be done, such as filling out some stub sections. Aleta 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am unable to find any reliable information for this section either online or in what I would consider the reasonable literary sources. I am removing the section without prejudice toward recreation if someone who knows where to find verifiable data comes along. ◄ Zahakiel ► 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the various articles about individual demons, can you please give cites about where the information on these demons comes from? Most of us don't believe in demons, but are willing to accept statements about demons as mythological / fictional figures, or statements that someone else believed demons to be real. It would be useful to say "According to the Grimoire of X by Y, the demon Z is..." -- The Anome 07:26 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
For one Satanists and Lucifarians are two different groups, whith opposing dogmas. And for two; this is in no way a patently Christian topic.
3:56 15 July 2005 (ZEBURN)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
why it is worse than Necromancer ? why it is deleted from here, and from demonologist article ? it should be either here or in demonologist article (which is now redircet) Idot ( talk) 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The article on Necromancy has a section on necromancy in video games because the practices and goals of necromancy in fantasy entertainment (e.g. raise zombie armies using evil magic) are extremely different from the historical forms of necromancy (e.g. trying to talk to dead people for information). Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ian... the "in fiction" section was completely and totally pointless, and so have removed it. If "Idot" wants to restore it he/she should take the time to get a consensus of editors here to agree to it instead of just edit warring to put it back. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
All of your arguments over semantics (whether summoning demons is a goal or a method) completely miss the point. The introductory statements in the article pretty clearly define real-life demonologists as theologians, not sorcerors. Here's a reality check: Civil War historians are not trying to summon Robert E. Lee, astronomers are not trying to summon planets, and real-life, legitimate demonologists are not trying to summon demons. Sorry if that contradicts your own personal misconceptions, but it's true. Just like elves and pixies don't exist. Demonologists study the history of demonic beliefs in the contexts of history, literature, religion, etc. It is an academic endeavor, not a supernatural one. "Both fictional and real demonology involves attempting to summon demons"? Somebody makes this astoundingly ignorant comment and then the people who argue with him don't even think to point out how insane that is? My god! Go back to your D&D games and leave editing Wikipedia to people with some concept of reality. Minaker ( talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I stand corrected. I'd sit corrected, but I can't sit down 'cause of that damn stick. Minaker ( talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, though, I do apologize for my acharacteristically antagonistic attitude in the above comments. I can get pretty aggressive on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I did so without even the slightest provocation; the fault is entirely mine. I may disagree with some of your statements, but it's no excuse for breaking Wikipedia's guidelines on civility, nor for specifically aiming the attack at you. Furthermore, this is a clear example of me mocking what I do not understand, so I apologize for that too. (From now on, I'll stick to mocking the things I do understand! That gives me very little to mock.) All joking aside, though, I do apologize for offending you. Minaker ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I accept your apology. Its nice to see someone reasonable on the internet. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[long section of copyright violation text from the publication removed]
Uh, no... multiple people told you that section doesn't belong, so quoting an unreasonably long bit of text from a copyrighted publication doesn't change that. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Now, once a conflict is going, we have choices. Suppose an edit is made against consensus. Suppose that you've reverted it once, but then it's made again. The person who makes the edit a second time, without first establishing consensus, is edit warring. If you revert them again, then you're also edit warring. You can do that, without breaking any "rules". However, if you refrain from reverting instead, and decide to take a different path, then you can get where you're going with less difficulty.
If a policy "allows" strategy A, but strategy B gets you where you want to go more smoothly, then go with strategy B. In this case, that means, yes, letting a bad edit stand for a little while, thus occupying an excellent position above reproach from which you build your case on the talk page. Then, when outsiders come along, they'll be more inclined to agree with you, and they'll probably make your edit for you. If you're both reverting each other, then a newcomer to the scene sees two tendentious edit warriors. This is simply a fact of life on Wikipedia. Our policies do not require you to recognize this fact, but if you do, you'll be happier and more effective. This is really all I was trying to say.
You can do it the hard way, or you can do it the easy way. I've seen a lot of editors come to grief doing it the hard way. However, experience is the only teacher that mankind will learn from, so don't let me stand in your way. You almost certainly have my support, and if you play ball, I'll make the edit for you, unless you decide to chase me off by talking about how you're "allowed" to revert. I care very little about what's "allowed", and very much about what works.
Does that make sense? Ball's in your court. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
so, your bould positions mean that neutraility is disputed ( Idot ( talk) 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC))
Demonolatry has been merged in, to form a small mention of occult and ceremonial magic's use of demonology. We can't really deny it exists at all.:) Merkinsmum 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to bring back the article on demonolatry? Seems to me like this was the action of one person, there was no consensus vote to approve the merger, which is within Wikipedia guidelines. As stated before, demonology is the study of demons, demonolatry is the worship of demons. Perhaps articles on theology should be merged with Christianity? 209.244.7.239 ( talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on Demonology (occultism) does not match the material on the page Demonology (occultism). Either material needs to be added to the page, or the link should be removed and possibly the section retitled - is occultism the best word to use given the lack of a precise definition? Occultism can refer to christian occultism which is already covered in the christian demonology section. Perhaps 'demonology in other faiths' would be better. There is far too little information about this here - there should be some basic info about belief systems and the number of adherants to such faiths Halon8 ( talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The article appears to be about Christian demonology, not about demonology in any more generic sense
I consider myself in some sense a demonologist, but I am not Christian
Indeed, I count the Christian deity amongst the host of demons
Laurel Bush ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers
Then what I wonder is the sort of prejudice that seems place demons below the rank of gods, as in "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds"?
I tend to see gods themselves as essentially demonic beings
Or is there a good generic term to cover both?
Laurel Bush (
talk)
16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Daimon does mean spirit, but demon usually doesn't get used the same way as daimon. Spirit would cover both demon and deity, so I guess spirituality would be what covers both. It isn't a specifically Christian view that places demons below deities, it comes from Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and is also found in Islam and Sikhism. "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds." A malevolent deity could be discussed under both demonology and theology, but generally demon refers to spirits that don't get much, if any, worship. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Daimon looks to me like just another way of spelling demon
Perhaps monotheistic demonologies (plural) is what the article is about, demonologies of monotheistic religions
Laurel Bush (
talk)
11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Daimon is the root for Demon, but colloquial use has separated the words (language is a living thing). The article does include Buddhist and Hindu demonologies (perhaps reading the article as it currently is would help). The reason I didn't get into those is that Buddhism isn't focused on worship and Hinduism... well, the "lack of worshippers" bit does work for beings such as many of the Asuras (Mitra is worshipped, but most of the rest aren't). Can you find a source for demons being viewed by a notable group as equal to deities or deities being demons? Keep in mind that this would be a minority view in demonology, so the article wouldn't be rewritten much. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to regard worshippers as possessed by demons
Gods seem to me to be just especially powerful demons, who tend to characterise rival god-demons as less than or worse than themselves
"Spirituality" no, by the way, "spiritology" perhaps
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So is this entirely about your POV instead of sources? This isn't a general discussion board but a discussion board pertaining to improving the article, which means it has to be sourced material. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It is about whether my POV is represented anywhere in any recognisable shape or form, either in this article or elsewhere, or is precluded by historical anti-heretical bias
Laurel Bush (
talk)
18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Are there sources for your POV? If there are, then they could be incorporated into the article. If there aren't any demonological texts or works that reflect your POV, then the issue certainly isn't any sort of bias on the part of everyone else. It's like, I consider Romeo and Juliet to be a parody of love stories, but because I don't have sources for that view, the article saying the play is about love doesn't mean everybody else is biased. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers
You have at least helped me to invent the term spiritology
More to the point perhaps is the fact that the so-called Demonology article seems to me now to be more about religious demonology (or religious spiritology?), demonology developed by worshippers, who see their favoured demons/spirits as gods
By historical bias I mean historical religious and semantic bias long predating Wikipedia
Laurel Bush (
talk)
11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If I think that the word shark refers to a small furry rodent lives in trees and hides nuts, is everyone that refers to that animal as a squirrel biased, or is it me? Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you accept that the demonology of the article is religious in origin?
Laurel Bush (
talk)
11:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Belief in the existance of spirits is a religious belief, not a scientific statement. Ian.thomson ( talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can not accept the possibility of non-religious demonology or spiritology (such not dependent on worship of any particular demon or spirit, then there is your bias
Also, I now know I am not the first to use the term spiritology
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Where is worship mentioned at all in the statement "Belief in the existance of spirits is a religious belief, not a scientific statement"...? Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology aren't about worship, and most monotheists believe there are a variety of spirits they do not worship. And again, if I think that the word shark refers to a small furry rodent lives in trees and hides nuts, is everyone that refers to that animal as a squirrel biased, or is it me? Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If religion includes a god or gods, there is worship (or, at least, this is implied by "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds")
Whether Buddhism, in some of its forms (in which references to dieties or other spirits may be quite absent), is really a religion is debatable
I do not know about Jainism and Scientology
Spiritology, by the way is now a redirect to
Al G. Manning
Seems he uses the term, but I know very little about his work
Laurel Bush (
talk)
13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The Buddha frequently refered to gods (Devas particularly), but Buddhism doesn't worship them because they're in the same boat as us. Buddhism is full of faith based metaphysical claims about the soul and the universe, so it is considered a religion by religious scholars. There is a philosophy that the Buddha expounded (usually refered to as Buddhism as well) which many say can be taken separately. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If I am not careful, by the way, I might start believing in an amphibious normally arboreal shark demon capable of garnering hazel nuts which have fallen into the well of Sinann
Perhaps another manifestation of my own demonic being
And it seems to me now that "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds" actually implies that gods are demons but for rank
Fewer worshippers and . . .
Laurel Bush (
talk)
15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe the term demon is non Christian in origin
Christianity has given it a meaning which may not be appropriate in other contexts
Laurel Bush (
talk)
10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The Christian god is a powerful demon who has neutralised one host of demons while stigmatising the rest?
Laurel Bush (
talk)
12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this: Prejudice? Erm, in all accounts, the author's deity usually wins. 71.234.123.137 ( talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I broke away the Hinduism and Buddhism demonology sections, and expanded slightly on both. They are very much related however, with the former exerting a great influence over the latter. It's possible that I shouldn't have split them. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the NPOV tag necessary at this stage? Does anyone intend to fix the perceived problems? -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
More to the point, is there any likelihood of an NPOV anyway, given the subject matter and the narrow diversity of its practitioners? ExLegeLibertas ( talk) 12:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't care that discussion of the topic is not allowed, this is too funny:
If Christians believe that "holding fast to a particular belief and refusing to listen to reason" is posession, then all Christians are posessed! ROFL.
The article is written unapologetically from the point of view of an occultist. A more balanced approach would be to not minimize so strongly the Christian view on this patently Christian topic.
I find the placement of this article into Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity unnatural. If WikiProject Charismatic Christianity wants it (which I also find quaint) that must be up to their members to decide, but I certainly do not think demonology is a central part of their curriculum. __ meco 07:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is agonestic even a word? Deep Alexander ( talk) 08:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked the source for the following statement: "The Talmud declares that there are 7,405,926 demons, divided in 72 companies." The source is a generalist web page, not particularly scholarly, and what it says is this: " Johann Weyer wrote a book describing Hell: Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. He accepted the Talmud's estimate that there are exactly 7,405,926 demons, grouped into 72 companies. His book described the hierarchical structure of Hell. Although it was intended as a joke and a criticism of worldly hierarchies, it was eagerly analyzed by generations of ceremonial magicians who relied on it for source material." The word "accepted" implies that Weyer, a 16th-century occultist, actually saw this in the Talmud, but how are we to know whether this is true? The rest of the paragraph throws Weyer into doubt as a source. At best, this is third-hand documentation. It is (dubiously) verification that Weyer made the statement (did anybody check the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum?), but not verification that it is contained in the Talmud. A better source would be a scholar who actually cites the Talmudic passage. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states that "[Demonology] is the branch of theology relating to supernatural beings who are not gods." Given the obvious morphological derivation of "theology," it seems to me that theology must by definition be about gods. There may be a word that encompasses the study of all supernatural beings, but "theology" isn't it.
2warped@gmail.com 68.36.147.128 ( talk) 07:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Demonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe the demon malika was the young no err ma Jean I found by greyhound Priestabbyvanquish12 ( talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Demonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
How does one "study" things that don't exist? 2600:6C5A:6780:265D:64BC:2EA2:7432:7C6C ( talk) 08:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Demonology is the study of demons or beliefs about demons. For most of human history, have not most people held some sort of belief in evil spirits? Not saying they're right, but did they or did they not believe in them?
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Carolyn1218.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)