Talk:Demon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Other Demons?

Should we link to all other pages featuring other "types" of demons such as the Incubus (demon) and all?

208.60.233.179 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, missed that daemon was already mentioned


Do we really need the whole big list of demons at the end of the article? Can't we make a seperate page or something with this list? IMHO it just makes the article look like a list of links. The description at the top is pretty good, I think, but the list doesn't add any value. Just MHO. Anyone else? -Frecklefoot

It might be better if the demons list were classified by culture, origin, or (anti)religion rather than alphabetically. I'm not sure I'm competent to sort them, though. I also notied that Wall the demon links to a page describing a wall of bricks. Never heard of the demon Wall, but that probably needs to go to some different article. --Ihcoyc

The 2nd para begins with a sentence that I can't even understand: "The (Job v. 23) "stones of the field"), with which the righteous are said to be in league, seem to be field-demons of the same nature."

It looks like we have contradicting information on jinni/djinni/genies in this article and Jinn, Djinn, Genie articles - I wanted to merge the three, but is there anyone here who'd care to clarify on this contradiction? Ausir 03:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

General question and request for assistance: I want to add a reference to an aircraft called the Demon (Navy F3H). How is this done when a very long article is already present? Please look at elevator - a long article, with a short reference to aircraft elevator as a separate topic at the bottom. Should there be some kind of header with the various classifications at the top that then link to the bottom? I am a newbee, so some guidence as to the wiki way would be appreciated. Thanks. Leonard G.

A header isn't necessary, no. If the aircraft merits its own article, create a seperate article titled "Demon (aircraft)" or something along those lines and add a line like "For the aircraft, see Demon (aircraft)" at the bottom. If it would only merit a couple of sentences, you might include that info in this article, where the link would go. -Sean 09:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

"It has been rumored that demons communicate with humans through the Ouija game." Not by anyone at my dinner table, you can be sure! Does Wikipedia have to tiptoe around this stuff in the name of NPOV? Are we all idiots? Wetman 05:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, are all the references to Japanese Manga and Anime really appropriate? There is a difference, I hope, between demons of myth, superstition, and legend and TV shows!

[edit] Chaldean?

Chaldean is a very vague term, for which meanings you can look up the very Wikipedia article with that title. The sources for that section are at least one century out-of-date. Assyriology has progressed *a lot* in the in-between.

201.19.154.13 03:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiji

This game is always fun. It's always fun until you're alone playing it by yourself and the lights in your house go out and stay that way forever. I couldn't ever see anything in my house from that point on...luckily I moved in with my dad. But since I have played with that godforsaken thing I haven't been exactly myself (or so ms. vandramoff said). The things or thing that made my lights go out forever more to me and me alone...for I stand alone in my walk through this cruel life. The things are menaces. They destroyed my life. They are after me. They're on my ass. There's some powerful cult magic at work...like an ancient spell or VooDoo or Santeria. (rocks too). How is a Quiji board actually made? If any teen boy or girl--guy or lady teen wants to talk demon...contact me at monstermike@ev1.net. If I do not answer for a long while...just keep waiting...I'm probably practicing VooDoo or Santeria, or my computers just being an ass. I do not have instant messenger...BUMMER.

[edit] Triage of recent anon. edits

A mix of modern "angelology, sermonizing, and confusion of sources with traditions made it hard to disentangle some good from the dross:

  • "The "good" demon, or "angel" in recent use": Wikipedia is not a general repository of pop culture. This obscures the subject at hand.
  • The following is babble, not germane to the subject "Demon":
See also the invasion and conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, who were led by Joshua, the son of Nunn. Before this invasion, the Israelites were told to cleanse and purify themselves, because "'the nefalim' ("fallen ones", or "demons") were in the land"), and when the time came to attack the accursed fortress-city of Jericho, the Israelites were forbidden to take any Canaanite possessions as booty from the city after winning the battle, because any loot from the city might have been tainted by demons, God told them (Achan the Israelite broke this taboo, and was stoned to death by the Israelites as a consequence). This example illustrates the difference between God's people, who are clean, and their opponents, who are unclean; an aspect of the uncleanliness of the goiim was demonic influences, which apparently extended even to their possessions. Consequently, the Hebrews were called to be separate, and traditionally, could not even mix with the gentile nations. Only a moron would miss the point that demons are capable of tainting objects, causing those objects to become "unholy", or "unclean". After all, this IS a "discussion" page, not the article itself. What are you afraid of, the truth? (Oct.)
Actually, the entire history of the nation of Israel, before the appearance of Jesus, was characterized by the conflict between "good" kings, who did what was right in the sight of God/Yah, and the "bad/evil" kings, who did what was evil in the sight of God/Yah, including idolatry, and failing to tear down the idols in the "high places". The "good" king Josiah tore down these idols, and destroyed them. Moses destroyed the idolatrous golden calf that the Israelites had worshipped while Moses was on the mountain communing with YHWH. And also, note the classic confrontation between Elijah, the servant of Yah, and the prophets of Baal, who were idolaters. "If Yah is God, then follow Him; if Baal is God, then follow him."
  • a closed-minded person considers this to be, More babble: "One school of Christian thought believes that "the Angel of the Lord" was a pre-incarnation of Jesus. This would make Him not only the messenger, but also the message. Jesus said that Moses "spoke of Me"." This is not the theory of one, lone person, but a popular view among Christianity.

I also retained numerous useful edits by this same contributor, and removed a couple of tautologies: etymological origins are always "linguistic" etc. --Wetman 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Chinese" demons

I removed these bogus assertions here: "The Chinese believed very strongly in demons and omens. There are many types of Demons but only a few Omens. The Omens show what is going to happen next in your life such as the Omen for death is the Grim, this usually takes shape as a black dog. It is called this because whoever sees it has a little chance of surviving. In china in 200BC most black dogs were killed because they were believed to be a bad Omen. Some Omens are good, such as the Omen for happiness, Anthea, which usually takes the shape of a beautiful lady. Demons however are all bad. There are many different shapes and sizes of demons such as the water demon, the temple demon and the grass demon."

[edit] Art demons

Should we include ref to the Joss Whedon "demonology" of "BTVS" & "Angel", which holds demons are an older, superceded form of life on earth? Trekphiler 19:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In Islam

Islam didn't have any distinguishing diffrence between Ifrits,Marids,Jinns and Shaitain. There was only Jinn. Shaitan simply refers to evil Jinn. Azreal is an angel and not a Jinn. And there is no demon and angel appointed to each person but rather 2 angles. One to record good deeds and other bad ones.Burning phoneix 10:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

just wanted to clear this up to my fellow Judeo-Christians editors , Jinn ARE demons and demons ARE Jinns, it's just the Arabic term for them as known to Arabs, much like the famous confusion with Allah and God, of course I can't add this to the article unless I bring a source or else it would be original research or something since I can't quote this from an authentic source, but at least you read an Arab explanation of an Arabic term :) Habibko (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A correction and suggestions.

In the section, "war in heaven" it marks Satan as fitting the role of every Biblical Demon. But it never states that. There were multiple Demons in mention, some by name others not. (if you are going to quote a text, you might as well do it right) Most of these names have anthropological roots which can be applied to the concept of "Demonizing" - for example, although Bael was worshiped as a Nature God, because the Jews had this forced on them the word came to mean, "False God".

I also think culture crossing details should be mentioned. For example, some Demons were mentioned by name in a number of Religions. Bael, Baal, Bali, are all names which can be viewed to refer to the same while being respected in totally different cultures. Then there is the "& headed Dragon" which is mentioned in Revalations, and respect by the Japanese as "The 7 headed Demon Dragon, Yamata" and a similar name applied in Ugarit, being "The 7 Headed Demon God, Yam, who rules over the sea of chaos that threatens to swallow the world of order" (Ugarit applied the concept of a God as being either of Chaos and Order, rather than Good and Evil, and most "Gods" respected by them as chaotic eventually became respected as Evil in later cultures)

In other words, allot of interesting anthropology should be mentioned.


Gwaeraurond 11:44 PM EST, March 5 2006


The section on demons in movies and television is woefully inadequate. It should be greatly expanded on or eliminated altogether.

[edit] In modern mysticism

Please don't delete the section 'In Modern Mysticism', since it belongs very much to this article:

You forgot to insert an ÍMHO in your previous sentence.
The section is being deleted from the article since it is off topic and does NOT cite any verifiable reviewed source and it does NOT say why it very much pertains to the article's topic . . . Jclerman 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm replacing the dump of Ndru01's debated text with the most recent version:

Following the pantheistic view, combined with recent theories like TechGnosticism (Erik Davis), Infomysticism (Steve Mizrach, [[1]]), Digital Philosophy, quantum physics and today's Information Science, demons and angels should be in fact regarded as Minds (manifestation of the essence that emanates from the Spirit, the manifestable essence) that interact with this physical universe, but unlike human and animal minds/souls, demons and angels 'drive' complex abstract forms (complex thoughts/ideas) as their 'vehicle'. Demons as ‘drivers’ of abstract forms, as Minds in interaction with Information represent a counter-consciousness. All of the physical universe is based on underlying information (nature's binary code, with two non-physical values for 0 and 1), so matter itself, as well as abstract/energetic forms, is just encoded ('bits' of) information in this 'program'. A human (or animal) mind/soul is 'driving' an organic form (individual material body on a level of a synergetic whole, including the brain as the most sophisticated organ) as a 'vehicle'. The brain is generating and using countless abstract forms/objects. An abstract form/object, although non-dimensional (shapeless), is energetically real (not imaginary), as material form is real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, would be the best demonstration of that), and like any organic form, it also has its own associated morphic field. The elemental abstract forms are thoughts, the most complex are skills, sciences, languages etc. Many thoughts (abstract forms), as energy processed by the brain together with the data from their morphic fields, since brain is controlling the whole body, actually can cause some effects, through vibration (subconsciously sent by the brain), to different body-parts (organs, tissues). Often, a fear, urge, or some unpleasant feeling, are in fact caused by (usually some 'minor') demon, a mind driving some thought (that every brain can tune to, under certain condition).
Demons (counter-creation minds that together, in coordination, make what some religions call Satan), are, although not 'intelligent' (in a creative way like human minds are), however extremely skillful to attract/trap (a) human mind(s), with their vehicles easily regrouping and reorganizing (as abstract/energetic forms). Angels, of course are the opposite, they 'drive' positive abstract forms/objects (pure, noble and inspiring thoughts/ideas, that enable spiritual progress of humanity). According to Gnostics, demons (archons) rule this world (Demiurge's creation), being the main reason for the troubles the humankind goes through.
So, the awareness of thoughts being demons' vehicle, was probably the reason why quantum physicist David Bohm (Thought as a System) dedicated many of his efforts bringing up the importance of thoughts to humankind : "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."

Fuzzypeg 04:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But it does have a citing (Bohm). It has a reference to Gnostics, and I added now a reference to TechGnosis, Infomysticism, Digital Philosophy, and through link to morphic fields, Rupert Sheldrake is referenced as well. So the text is now definitely relevant and needs to be presented here. So please don't remove it.

greetings, Ndru01 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ndru01. Please sign all your comments by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This will automatically turn into your user name and date.

Now the text is not definitely relevant, in fact it looks very likely that it is irrelevant. True, you refer to the works of well-known publised authors, but if I understand it correctly, you are not presenting their theories but your own, and saying that some of their ideas are similar in some ways to yours. To understand better what ideas can be presented on Wikipedia and what cannot, please read WP:NOR and WP:V. I have my own ideas about demons (which have some small similarity to yours, but also some major differences), but I haven't put any of my own observations in the article because a) that would impose an unnecessary level of dogma and b) it would breach Wikipedia policy. Fuzzypeg 03:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone, please, totally copyedit this..

"Scientists occasionally invent hypothetical entities with special abilities as part of a thought experiment. These "demons" have abilities that are nearly limitless, but they are still subject to the physical laws being theorized about.

For example, in Descartes' Second Meditation, it is argued, as a thought experiment, that it is at least possible that there is an all-powerful evil demon who is deceiving me, such that this demon causes me to have false beliefs, including the belief that there is an object before me and the belief that two plus three equals five. Note that the power of such a demon would be two-fold: both empirical and rational thinking can be completely compromised. This leads to a worrisome argument:

  1. One knows some fact or other only when one can rule out that there is such a demon.
  2. But one can never be in a position rule out that there is such a being, since we can never be sure that the demon isn't merely toying with our epistemic situation.
  3. Thus, we can never know any facts at all!

I hate it when people need to be slammed in the face; WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A COLUMN. I was too lazy to understand what it reads there, so please, someone, if that is a joke or something (too lazy to think right now), then remove it, I guess...

--84.249.252.211 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Hill

Until a less disrespectful reason than, "revert obnoxiously long section on trivial game, completely freaking irrelevant for this article," is offered, I am slotting my addition of Silent Hill into the Games references once more. Though I am curious as to why it was deleted; is the games section irrelevant to begin with? Maybe pop culture references in novels, films, games, and such forth would be better suited to an entry all their own? If any video game is relevant to this entry, I would imagine it to be Silent Hill.

As to how my entry is irrelevant to its surroundings, I am unsure. I can see how it might be seen as "NPOV" (a concept I abhor already, but will tolerate within reason). While I'm sure going on about the allegorical natures of the demons seems irrelevant, I thought it interesting and valuable to add a pop culture reference of demons as beings of skewed salvation, rather than torment and damnation. Several religions present similar ideas, what little is known of the Yezidi, I believe. Though Melek Taus is certainly not the best example, he is the first at the top of my head. I felt that this peculiar presentation was relevant to this article specifically. If anyone would like actual references by Toyama and the other designers to this nature, feel free to ask. I'll have to dig a bit, but this is not exactly "Original Research" (another distasteful concept, but one I'm much more willing to tolerate). Much of the games' plots are convoluted and obscured, but these ideas are presented officially both within and without the works themselves. (Although it is not the reference I was looking for, I believe that this is acceptable and confirms the information in my edit: [2]. Source is The Book of Lost Memories, a silly fan book slightly more useful than other silly fan books, though not offering much that isn't obvious, publisher unknown to me. For what it's worth, it is, however, "official.")

Feel free to edit the entry to comply with "NPOV," though I would like to in some way leave the idea I stated above intact. I apologize if my post in some way violates Wikipedia etiquette and comes across as aggressive. I edit very little, and the rudeness of many people does nothing to alleviate that. Thanks to any able to examine others' viewpoints, even if those viewpoints dislike the concept of a neutral point of view. Please choose words with respect, and others are likely to do the same.

Yes, if someone is going to delete a section, they can do a little better than claim "freaking irrelevant" in the summary line. I'm not going to make any judgement on the value of mentioning this game in the article, however I will say that a neutral point of view and avoiding original research are fundamentally important in making Wikipedia what it is. Without these policies this would be a blog with a couple of hundred articles, not an encyclopedia with over a million. Material added to an article is much more convincing if it actually comes from reliable sources rather than from the mouth of Thomas Jeffrey Anderson. (Who's Thomas Jeffrey Anderson, I hear you ask? - my point exactly). Fuzzypeg 10:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


One thing about Lost Memories, is that it's a officially released book(in Japan), but the translation is from fans. Xuchilbara 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pharaonic demons

The following text could be improved: "Ancient Egyptians also believed in demonic like monsters that devoured the human soul, while it traveled towards afterlife, although, certainly demons per se did not exist specifically in Ancient Egypt.' As it stands it has an air of defining "demon' so as to exclude a soul-eating Egyptian demon. Why? Why "demonic-like"? What is the submerged issue here that results in such contortions on the textual surface? --Wetman 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources??

What is with the whole second paragraph of "In Christian myth and legend?" I have never heard these kind of ideas before in my life: Angels first rebelling, then angels falling, but only the rebelling angels becoming demons? Then Lucifer being "second in command" to Satan? (I looked this up and it's under New Age Beliefs in the Lucifer article, which, last time I checked, was NOT Christian theology). Lucifer was the name of the angel on God's left hand, while Jesus was on God's right. Lucifer rebelled and took one-third of the angels with him. Now Lucifer's name became Satan and the fallen angels became demons. That is what it says in the Bible, what is in this article are New Age beliefs, masquerading as scripture. --Padishar 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The article should represent mainstream Christian myth here. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "according to Christianity"

"According to Christianity, when God created angels, he offered them the same choice he was to offer humanity: follow, or be cast apart from him. Some angels chose not to follow God, instead choosing the path of evil. These are not the fallen angels, but are the pre-human entities known as demons. The fallen angels are the host of angels who later rebelled against God, headed by Lucifer (who is often confused with his second in command, Satan). And later the 200 angels known as the Grigori, led by Semyazza, Azazel and other angelic chiefs, some of whom became the demons that were conjured by King Solomon and imprisoned in the brass vessel, the Goetia demons, descended to Earth and cohabited with the daughters of men." There's no way that this can be said to be "according to Christianity." I mean, there's almost nothing of which you can say, "According to Christianity," as if Christianity were a monolith. Is this "according to [the previously mentioned] apocryphal Christian writings"? That's my guess. Jonathan Tweet 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premillenialist Bias

"Due to man's failure, as part of the punishment, the permission granted to Satan and his demons to tempt the first humans away from their Creator will now last until the end of this age when Christ shall return for the battle of Armageddon. Satan and his host will be confined and Christ shall reign and establish 1000 years of peace upon the earth. At the end of the 1000 years Satan will again be unleashed for a final battle after which the earth shall be renewed by fire."

This assumes the premillenialist position to be held universally by Christians, and doesn't mention the alternative Amillenial and Postmillenial views. Either add them, or remove this. Mordac 16:41, 05 october 2006

[edit] Last part of introduction

Although some scholars presumptuously suppose that Christianity derived its demonology from other sources such as Zoroastrianism, this opinion is non-sequitur. It doesn't follow logically that an idea is automatically borrowed from another culture or religion simply because the other culture is older and had a similar concept beforehand. Zoroastrianism is worlds apart from Christianity in its theology, and just because some of it's theology has Christian parallels does not mean that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism. A more careful comparison of the two religions and a more in-depth study of Christian, and in particular, Catholic Theology will show this to be the case in, not only in Demonology, but scripture studies and other aspects of the faith as well.

Do wikipedia really have to be this NPOV? Connections between old christian and Zoroastianism is quite obvious. I want to see the sources. And even if the sources are right, and that all some similareties are superficial, this article should have more exact information about wheter or not the demons are borrowed from the Zoroastianism and leave the rest of the defence for Christianity on the page about Zoroastianism or Christianity. I think the qoute should be removed or revised with sources.Rsverdrup 20:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the quote is at all NPOV. WP:NPOV should provide a balanced view noting the prominent theories and their supporting evidence; the above quote is simply some anonymous person's assertion that Christian theology has no strong influences from non-Jewish religions, which according to scholarly evidence is far from true. If someone wants to cite an influential theologian who holds this view, then an attributed statement would be welcome, but as it stands, this is purely original research and should be removed. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the verb "to Demonize"

The beginning of this article contains the sentence "to "demonize" a person means to cast aspersions on them" but to my understanding, and accord to the OED, its meaning is rather stronger: it means "to render demoniacal", and "demoniacal" in turn means "devilish, fiendish". I think a better way of putting it would be "to "demonize" a person means to portray as evil." Perhaps someone more involved with this article might want to consider making this or a similiar change. Hi There 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it conformably to my preceding comment. Hi There 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demons in science

Out of all the classifications of demons listed, this one is the only type that does not refer to literal demons, but rather an arguement in epistemology. This page, however, seems to be meant to refer to literal demons which appear in various mythologies. Perhaps this section of the article should be moved to the disambiguation page? 66.24.236.62 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor argument

Hi. This article is interesting and reasonably sourced. I removed some words that may be construed as argument according to policy. If those arguments are actually sourced then please reinstate them with quotes and citations. I think its only a minor problem but its a good idea to nip argumentation or possible editorializing in the bud before it blooms:) AlanBarnet 06:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

To the best of my knowledge the word series demon -- daemon -- dæmon and daimon -- daimōn both share ancestry in δαίμων. They are all closely related. However over some millenniums these words have, as most other words, subtly changed their meaning. Though the choice of word does reveal differences in context and maybe what time period it was written, they are still so close that I'm questioning the need for two separate articles. Currently there are two articles: Demon and Daemon (mythology). I think this should be one article that properly explains the evolution of demons through the ages. Can someone explain me the rationale of two articles? --Tunheim 15:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • So let's propose a merge and see what the discussion regarding such yields. Lord Metroid 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My only concern would be the length of a merged article. If it would not be too long, I'm all for it. Aleta 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Striking my previous statement - because of further discussion, I don't think a merger would be a good idea. -Aleta 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
From my experience the difference between demons and daemon is their usefulness to humans. Demons get their usual reputation as evil and hating humanity. Whereas, daemons usually are support and familiar roles with humanity (such as in the series His Dark Materials) DisgurntleDevil 19:58, 20 March 2007
Could this be due to demon being a more modern term while daemon being more archaic. Thus when using daemon, you indirectly refer to "the way demons were seen as a long time ago". And I've been given the impression that for the last two millennia the negative connotation of the term has increased. Could this explain your point?
Please be aware that all this is my gut feeling. I'm on thin ice here, so please don't take my musings as facts. --Tunheim 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts involve the relative connotations of the words.. While sharing a relatively similar denotion, the two words have radically different meaning in a lot of peoples minds. (Demon's being the 'evil' mythological creatures from Judeo-Christianism, and Daemon's being relatively good (yet powerful) supernatural beings from much older mythologies.) While I agree both words share a common root, I do believe that the differences in current perceptions warant seperate articles. Daemon Lotos 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the vastly different connotations of the two words warrant there being separate articles. Kilrothi 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Daemon Lotos for clarifying the issue being discussed. Not doubting your opinion, I would be grateful if you could provide some references backing up your view. --Tunheim 12:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult to give examples of relative connotations, usually being influenced by current social trends and perceptions. However, a quick flip through most mythology books related to hellenistic cultures should give you the information on Daemon's that you need, as well as a quick flip through the Bible, an indication of the purpose of Demon's (I recommend Matthew 12:24 for the equation of Demon's and Devils, as well as a large portion of Matthew and Mark talking of Demon posession.) though finding quality literary sources comparing the two may be difficult. (This is perhaps what Wikipedia strives to be?) I also cite Microsoft Encarta: Demon: [3] and Daemon: [4]. Hope this helps :). Daemon Lotos 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"This is perhaps what Wikipedia strives to be?" No, it needs to be stated elsewhere in a reliable source to be put here. If it's not, then putting it here constitutes original research. {Note that I'm not implying anything about the validity or not of the demon/daemon distinction - only making the point about OR.) -Aleta 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I fear you may have misunderstood me Aleta, I agree 100% that Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Hence my quantifying my argument with such. However, what wikipedia can be, I believe, is a comparison of these facts. Leaving everything in the open, and the individual Wikipedia user to make an informed decision. :) Sorry if I was unclear before. Daemon Lotos 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification, Daemon Lotos! I think we're on the same page now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :) -Aleta 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't mention it :) I need to learn to be clearer when I'm bantering on talk pages it seems. Daemon Lotos 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Walter Burkert, Greek Religion and Jane Ellen Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion give the informed reader some basic understanding of what daimon or daemon connote. These aren't "demons". Condensed synopses of each article at the other would clarify the muddled view that their etymology makes them somehow the "same". A title daemon (mythology) does help promote the false POV that "demons" by contrast aren't mythological. --Wetman 11:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, Maureen A. Tilley, "Exorcism in North Africa: Localizing the (Un)holy" explores the meanings of daimon among Christians in Roman Africa and exorcism practices that passed seamlessly into Christian ritual. Reading this article will show that the two articles in Wikipedia are separate for good reasons. --Wetman 06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the words differ in meaning, and are both still used with those different meanings, and so they should have separate articles, I would've thought. When you use "daemon", you're referring to beings that can be good or bad (as the article makes clear); "demon" always refers to evil spirits. (An example of the former: Pythagorean Golden Verse 36 runs: "Father Zeus, O free them all from suffering so great or show unto each the daimon, who is their guide"; clearly this is not referring to an evil being.) The difference in meaning is why they have persisted as separate words. Using "daemon" also impliedly suggests the being referred to is being regarded in the context of an ancient Greek or neo-Platonist worldview. For fuller examples of difference in usage and meaning, I suggest you check the Oxford English Dictionary (the full version).
Anyway: because of the differences in meaning, I'm not convinced that the words are as "closely related" as Tunheim asserts.
If one of the terms was no longer used at all and was only of historical interest, then I might agree that the articles should be merged. But this is not the case: the word "daemon" is still used, particularly in mythology. (Again, see the OED for examples.)
The fact that the words also "share ancestry" I don't think is a very relevant consideration. The words "angel" and "evangelist" both "share ancestry" (they both derive from Greek words for "news" -- see Evangelism) -- should we be merging them? So do "deity" and "deva". Should we merge them?
... Anyway, for your interest, I've excerpted a portion of the Oxford Classical Dictionary below, which hopefully gives a bit of an idea of how the meaning differs: "daimon," Simon Hornblower & Antony Spawforth (eds), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press, 1996:
"daimon. Etymologically the term daimon means 'divider' or 'alloter'; from Homer onwards it is used mainly in the sense of operator of more or less unexpected, and intrusive, events in human life. In Homer and other early authors, gods, even Olympians, could be referred to as daimones...Hesiod introduced a new meaning: the deceased of the Golden Age were to him wealth-giving daimones functioning as guardians or protectors. This resulted in the meaning 'personal protecting spirits', who accompany each human's life and bring either luck or harm. A lucky, fortunate person was eudaimon (with a good daimon), an unlucky one was kakodaimon (with a bad daimon, from the 5th century BCE).
"Plato used all the earlier meanings of the term and introduced a new one...he describes guardian-daimones who accompany man during his life and after his death function as prosecutor or advocate...Completely new is Plato's concept of daimones as beings intermediate between god and men. ... A pupil of Plato, Xenocrates, argued for the existence of good and evil daimones. This is essentially the picture accepted by the Stoa and in Middle and New Platonism (especialy Plutarch, Porphry and Iamblichus). In later antiquity the existence of semi-divine beings helped to solve problems connected with the emergence of monothesistic ideas and the inherent problems of theodicy. It also offered a solution to the question of the true nature of the old polytheistic gods. They now acquired the staus of (good) daimones (see angels)."
Majbloodnok 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I have removed this sentence from the article:

"If Augustine meant 'demons' in the later, medieval sense, the passage would savor of a rhetorical casuistry that is not characteristic of him."

Unless a reliable source making this statement can be found and cited, it does not belong in the article, as it is apparently original research.

-Aleta 02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit in "The King and Queen of Demons"

Haggadah needs to be changed to Aggadah, as Haggadah is the Passover story and ritual guide and the Aggadah is the body of Aggadic works in Rabbinic material --- MRD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.20.134 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] We need a rollback.

I don't know what the hell is going on, but we need to move this page back to the title demon. Obviously the dude that changed the redirect wasn't aware of tags like (album), but we need to change the title back to demon. I changed the redirect back to what it should be. Who is with me? TheBlazikenMaster 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I created a request to do this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Kevinkor2 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Stemonitis (talk · contribs). You fixed this. --Kevinkor2 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I gave the guy that moved the page an advice, he seems new, so it's not yet time to give him a warning. I hope this won't happen again. Because this article is AWAY more important than some random album. TheBlazikenMaster 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoroastrianism?

I have never heard of Lilith being in Zoroastrianism, at all. The name Lilith is not a name of Avestan language origin, its Jewish. Firthermore Adam & the rest of the bible is not included in to Zoroastrianism, because they are serperate religions all togather[Tho they influenced eachother.]. This needs to be re-written so that it does not confuse Zoroastrianism w/ Judaism, as well.

Xuchilbara 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ouija boards? WTF?

The 6th paragraph is just ridiculous, in my opinion. I don't think that someone contacting demons with an Ouija board is a credible claim. Trueninja 07:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Science

Most of this large chunk mentions a lot of nonsense. Anti matter is very well out there interacting with regular matter all the time, not making other sci-fi dimensions as this thing says. It should be pseudoscience or something according to that.

--I could not agree more with the above paragraph. The entire piece on science appears to be based upon personal conjecture. Unless someone could rewrite this it should be removed. Jan Tik 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For a piece entitled "In Science" I am staggered by the complete lack of, well, science. It merely appears to be a list of personal opinions without back-up. This should be removed. --Rablenkov 07:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that entire section is almost complete garbage. Keep perhaps the first paragraph, and the link to Maxwell and Laplace's demons. I would be amazed if anybody could drag up ANY citations that linked hypotheses of parallel universes (which do exist, although in a fashion far more elegant than that presented in the article) with demonic mythology, even loosely. Burnage13 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This section was clearly written by someone with no training whatsoever in the sciences. He or she has obviously fabricated nearly every assertion in this section to support his or her religious views. For example, antimatter is every bit as visible as ordinary matter and is bound by the very same laws of nature. Since this section as it stands does not contribute meaningfully to the article in any way, it should either be removed entirely or completely rewritten by someone who knows something, anything, about science. Dhdirksschuster 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this talk entry above says the same thing. The "In Science" section of the main article is clearly in serious need for a total rewrite. As far as I am concerned the entire section should be scrapped (perhaps with the exeption of the links to Maxwell's and Laplace's demons as mentioned by Burnage13 above. One could even add a "see also" link to Descartes' demon. Perhaps the only claim/theory on this topic in modern science is covered in two books by the well known psychiatrist M. Scott Peck {People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil (Simon & Schuster, 1983) and Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption (Free Press, January 19, 2005)}. Some of his perceptions on the matter is still listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association. However, a balanced synopsis of his "ideas" on the topic should also include references to the many criticisms they had generated.

Jan Tik 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted a major rewrite of this section. Please review, correct, or add to it.

Jan Tik 11:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have originally flagged this section for containing original research and lack of references. Since then (as I have indicated above) I had attempted a major rewrite, and I have requested help in editing or broadening the section.

On 14:46, 24 August 2007, without warning or discussion User:DreamGuy wiped out my contribution. The rationale he gave stated: “renaming, and removing section wholly fringe and full of original research and concentrating on nonnotable person, including it gives WP:UNDUE weight to extreme minority view”. This edit has subsequently been rolled back by User:Driftwoodzebulin stating: “too much sourced material deleted with little to no discussion.” ---

Thanks Driftwoodzebulin. I do not consider my rewrite as set in stone, neither have I tried to replace a bunch of pseudoscience with more of the same. I do however want to address some of DreamGuy’s concerns:

The first two paragraphs (describing what science is) under the subsection “Real Demons”, is lifted almost verbatim from other articles of Wikipedia (check the links to confirm). They therefore cannot be full of original research unless those articles are heavily compromised themselves. The reason I have included them is to highlight the often misguided belief that science and religion/spirituality is somehow opposed to each other. In fact, as the quote from Einstein so clearly indicates, it is not (neither has to be) the case. I also included this introduction in the hope that doing so will prevent this section from getting embroiled in a largely useless editing contest.

The third paragraph contains a statement that is open to discussion – that very few scientist have attempted to bridge this gap (between science and spirituality). I welcome more input on this statement – which I perceive as true, but which could well be incorrect. Or let’s put it this way, I know of quite a few scientists who have done so in popular writing, but I am not aware of many who have tried to develop scientific theories or hypotheses regarding spiritual matters – especially concerning the issue at hand.

The last two paragraphs deal with Peck’s work and ideas on the matter, and contain no original research. Whatever one thinks of Peck and his ideas (personally I have a lot of questions about his observations and interpretations), in no way can one claim that he was not a well-known or a unimportant(non-notable) person, or a fringe scientist (check his resume). Also, the fact that he was a best-selling author of books for public consumption, does not preclude him from being considered a serious scientist. (If so, we would have to consider António Damásio and Francis Collins as fringe scientists too).

Now to Peck’s theories - they were and still are contentious. One could indeed say that they sound extreme and perhaps constitute a minority view. Certainly, they are unique. Since only Peck is mentioned in this section (as yet), at first glance it might appear as if the section is slanted. On the other hand, since so little has been said on this topic from a scientific point of view it is my contention that Peck’s opinions should be noted. Other contributors might be able to bring alternate views by other scientists to the fore which will eventually balance out the section. But to argue that one should exclude Peck’s ideas solely because they are radical or constitute an "extreme minority view" does not make sense. Rather, the correct way to counter such an impression would be to highlight the criticisms they have generated – something which I have attempted to do.

I hope this helps in understanding what I wrote and why I have done so. As I have said before, any help and input is welcome. It is not my intention that this section should unravel into another creationist/evolutionist type debate. On the other hand we should guard against zapping real historic data without having an open discussion.

Jan Tik 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Mythology?

it should be changed Christianity is not mythology its a religion.


Christianity has MYTHOLOGY, just as Judaism does and Greek. For example Lucifer is of Christian myth. Xuchilbara 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity is mythology, it is just still practiced today, unlike others. However, mythology doesn't equal false, so do not take it as an insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.71.169 (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Age View of Demons

I would like to add a section on the New Age view of demons with references to Carlos Castaneda's writings (particularly The Active Side of Infinity). The idea here (which is congruent with but not identical to M. Scott Peck's view)is that modern society, since the invention of agriculture, is fundamentally demonic in origin. For a broader explanation of this view see http://www.whatismagic.com/consciousness/demons-%e2%80%93-i.html TimRey 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] requested reference

"Jesus also apparently lends this power to some of his disciples, who rejoice at their new found ability to cast out all demons.[citation needed]"

Luke 10:17

This isn't the proper way to do it. use <ref> tag next time. TheBlazikenMaster 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed this. Sorry about my last reply, you did the right thing by telling us on the talk page. Since you're unregistered, no wonder you don't know how things work around here. TheBlazikenMaster 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Castaneda

I added a section paraphrasing the Mud Shadows chapter of Carlos Castaneda’s The Active Side of Infinity (p 215 ff), and also Refs to this book and a link to a New Age article on this subject. Notice how similar Castaneda’s view is to the theme of the popular movie The Matrix (albeit in the latter the predators holding the human race in mind-slavery are machines rather than demons). TimRey 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kendesh´s diamond

Does anybody know something about Kendesh´s diamond? It is a cursed diamond for some indian tribes... please write to me at wsteinner@yahoo.ca thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.159.39 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

Add this one:

It is called Oscar, a demonic entity that is featured on the radio show Coast to Coast AM. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Demons have a 2nd name

In the Satanic Bible written by Anton Szandor LaVey, Demons are also called "Infernals". So if you speak to a Satanist or want to use the correct terminology, they are referred to as Infernals. ChenZy (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)ChenZy (talk)

[edit] "Fiend?"

There's no origin or etymology for this term, or background at all- a glaring omission..? Where does the term come from? And how is it connected to 'daemon/demon'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.47.34 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several section have been tagged since last year.

We can't just stand around here doing nothing, well I can, I don't have a choice, as I'm not an expert on demons, I watch a lot of Charmed, but I know I have to research in more than just a show to clean the sections up, so I'm asking for help. Can someone help with cleaning those section up? They have been tagged for far too long. And I only hope they will have been clean up by the time the same months of this year arrive. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, before I edit the article I wanna ask for sure, can I use any information I got from the television series Charmed about demons and use it on this page? It seems like an obvious no, but I'm not 100% sure though. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not 100%? You'd never add information on Pallas Athena drawn from Xena Warrior Princess. A report on what you've read, with a <ref></ref> source will be much more useful than what you may have heard. --Wetman (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, whatever, but that's besides the point. I had to point out that something has to be done with this article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ability to cast out demons

When it says that Jesus gave them the power to cast out demons, it was actually the Holy Spirit that gave them the ability, not Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acm321 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Edit to "Popular Culture" section

The last statement in this section, "Tenacious D claim, in the song Tribute, to have been forced to play the best song in the world to save their souls from a shiny demon. This performance is shown in the 2006 movie The Pick of Destiny." is simply incorrect. Tenacious D does not preform Tribute in the movie The Pick of Destiny, nor is the song in the soundtrack of that movie. Tribute is the third track on their first album titled Tenacious D. Tribute is vaguely referenced by the plot of the movie, as they do end up playing a song to save their souls from a demon... a "shiny" red demon. Tenacious D rocks, and I am a fan who owns the albums and the movie, so I would trust me and make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.81.174 (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)