Jump to content

Talk:Demon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Demon/Archive 2) (bot
Line 57: Line 57:


*'''Oppose. ''' I've revised the summary, pointing out that demons and devils are not the same thing, and that demons may or may not also be believed to be devils. [[User:SRFerg|Stephen.R.Ferg]] ([[User talk:SRFerg|talk]]) 22:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose. ''' I've revised the summary, pointing out that demons and devils are not the same thing, and that demons may or may not also be believed to be devils. [[User:SRFerg|Stephen.R.Ferg]] ([[User talk:SRFerg|talk]]) 22:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

== Backwards ==

A demon is a protective spirit. It seems the meaning here is completely backwards. [[User:Rosengarten Zu Worms|Rosengarten Zu Worms]] ([[User talk:Rosengarten Zu Worms|talk]]) 11:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

:Have you any source for that claim? I know from several research that the Daimon were sometimes a protective spirit, but the demon is't. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 11:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

== Serious revision of the opening summary ==
The opening summary was a mess. I have re-arranged it quite a bit, moving sentences and paragraphs around to create a more orderly and chronologically correct sequence. I think we now have a much stronger foundation for future edits. [[User:SRFerg|Stephen.R.Ferg]] ([[User talk:SRFerg|talk]]) 22:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


== Section 'Wicca' ==
== Section 'Wicca' ==

Revision as of 08:39, 28 February 2024

Word Meaning

Hi,

I think that before greek mentioning in Hebrew language Demon is related to "Red One" which is related to Esaw. I think this meaning is used very often for describing the red "devil" with horse legs and horns. The red one is transliterated "HaAdmon" A different interpunctuation can then really fast lead to "demon" based on the missing vocals in bold hebrew. Since I didnt find this meaning in the whole article I found it necessary to mention here for further notice.

130.75.183.229 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Monday 20.01.2014[reply]

Helps 2A02:C7C:2D3B:1F00:BD42:83D8:2AAA:5A7 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i know that 105.245.234.50 (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

I propose that the content of Devil be merged into this article. The content of the Devil is similar to that of Demons. 210.181.111.231 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section 'Wicca'

The section is only two sentences, and they are part of one quote. THe quote further says only that the topic of this article is not adressed in this worldview. I do not see the benefit in including an entire section just to state that they do not relate to the main article. Should this sentence be integrated to another section or be removed entirely? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, it's a tertiary source which may not represent the views of all Wiccans. I'd say either expand and source to several academic sources on Wicca for a wider range of views, or remove for now. Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember me attempting to find reliable descriptions of demons in Wicca before. However, to no avail. I imagine it hard to find accurate descriptions of a rather modern and undefined movement such as Wicca. My opinion tends towards removal. If sources about demons in Wicca are found, a section can be created in accordance with whatever the source will have to say about the subject. Now, it is all just speculation. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classification and grouping

The article is currently mostly structured around organized religions or relions by region. With further research on the Divs (demons) we find an inter-cultural depiction of demons in the Iranian and Central Asian regions. Currently, they are mostly discussed in the Persian section. I wonder, if a "South-Central Asia-Region" section could be fruitful. In this section, we could elaborate on more culturally fluid demons in this region. Some sources for "divs" are "Armenian Demonology: A Critical Overview", "Early Islamic Iran", and "SÜLEYMÂN-NÂME’DE MİTOLOJİK BİR UNSUR OLARAK DÎVLER* Mehmet Burak ÇAKIN". The latter one is a paper about Divs in Turkish language before the modern-period. However, this would add a new layer to the general structure of the article. On the other hand, I am afraid that the current state of the article could make a categorical error by classifying demons into strict boundaries. Again, the divs sem to be the only real inter-cultural demons, all other "demons" are rather ambigious spirits rather than demonic. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"all other "demons" are rather ambigious spirits rather than demonic" What do you mean ambiguous? We have articles on characters like Pazuzu, who were seen as both "destructive and dangerous", and as protective guardians for women. Dimadick (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]