Talk:Demonic possession
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Article POV
Maybe I'm just too sceptical, but this article seems to be pretty NPOV on the existence of stuff like telekinesis. I don't have time to fix this now, but I'll mention it anyway. - S
- I think you mean POV. NPOV=good, POV=bad. And yes, we need a sceptical person who knows what they are talking about to fix it. -- Tim Starling 12:25 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
- It seems that a NPOV is not so neutral because it depends on the POV of each person, so many people prefere to consider all the stuff of "mysterious movements" as demonic action and so on. NPOV seems to depend on the personal belief and formation of people, but... it is only another POV, trying to be a NPOV. Just an opinion. A not NPOV is "thanks, S, for not signing your concept of NPOV providing a link to your user name, and so nobody can know who thinks so", it does not seem to be so neutral; it is easy to criticise when your identity remains hidden. As another explanation (to you and any other person who thinks so), if I do not know what I am talking about, I just do not talk, it is neutrality as I think (another POV), but this will become a Bizantine discussion, so, the end... for now, and forever, I'd wish. And if you want a sceptical person, you can be sure that I am one. My conclusions, dear S, were based on scientific American, British and Russian studies, studies made at the University of Palo Alto, California, and the studies of the late Spanish Jesuit Francisco Gonzalez Quevedo, who was so sceptical that laughed when explaining religious POVs on "demon possession" and refuted them with a so scientific NPOV that many eccesiastical authorities were about to forbid him to participate in televised interviews. Have a nice day, the day you read this. The Warlock 06:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, and dear S, if you only have a user number, not even a name, just besides of writing hear, I do have a user name, you could have written this and drop some lines to me too. It would have still been more neutral. The Warlock 07:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- It seems that a NPOV is not so neutral because it depends on the POV of each person, so many people prefere to consider all the stuff of "mysterious movements" as demonic action and so on. NPOV seems to depend on the personal belief and formation of people, but... it is only another POV, trying to be a NPOV. Just an opinion. A not NPOV is "thanks, S, for not signing your concept of NPOV providing a link to your user name, and so nobody can know who thinks so", it does not seem to be so neutral; it is easy to criticise when your identity remains hidden. As another explanation (to you and any other person who thinks so), if I do not know what I am talking about, I just do not talk, it is neutrality as I think (another POV), but this will become a Bizantine discussion, so, the end... for now, and forever, I'd wish. And if you want a sceptical person, you can be sure that I am one. My conclusions, dear S, were based on scientific American, British and Russian studies, studies made at the University of Palo Alto, California, and the studies of the late Spanish Jesuit Francisco Gonzalez Quevedo, who was so sceptical that laughed when explaining religious POVs on "demon possession" and refuted them with a so scientific NPOV that many eccesiastical authorities were about to forbid him to participate in televised interviews. Have a nice day, the day you read this. The Warlock 06:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Warlock, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-
[edit] Telepathy & Telekenisis
Warlock, I've made an edit to the page. Most notable is probably the added introductory paragraph to place the rest of the article in context, and the removal of the paragraph discussing scientific views of telepathy. telekenisis, and premonitions. You state that telepathy and telekenisis are accepted facts and the subject of extensive scientific study. I don't think that's accurate. In any case, I don't think the discussion of it actually added anything useful to the article (which is about demon possession rather than telepathy or anything else), so rather than rewriting it I simply truncated it. --Robert Merkel 23:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Should we include a section explaing the views of those who accept demonic possession in the present day? I'm from a pentecostal/charismatic background and have seen what I would describe as possession as well as exorcism, and I do not see these views represented here, but rather a naturalist viewpoint seems to predominate.
[edit] Title of Article
Shouldn't this article be called "Demonic posession" as demonic is the adjective form of demon? RedWolf 22:16, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Superstition
To call the belief "superstition" is to put a point of view label on the whole article. It can be argued later in the article that demonic possession or the belife in it is supersticious through a scientific view possibly. But to label the belief as "superstition" is POV which would go against Wiki policy. Dwain July 5, 2005 15:39 (UTC)
-
- Nonsense. There is no scientific basis for demonic possession, and therefore belief therein is unambigously superstition. Labeling it so is certainly not POV, only the factual truth. Fawcett5 5 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
- Power corrupts eh? This is your opinion and it is not needed the article is NPOV how it is, "Demonic possession is the belief in a form of spiritual possession..." That works fine without your personal beliefs or opinions. Dwain July 5, 2005 17:24 (UTC)
- "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear" is pretty NPOV to me, superstition does not mean "it has no scientific basis."
According to one of the definitions from dictionary.com
-
- superstition - A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. Sounds pretty biased, and POV to me
[edit] Biblical Links
All the biblical links were broken, so I rerouted them to the necessary verses at Biblegateway.com, and I added 2 new ones out of Acts. I didn't read them all through, though, so I'm not taking any responsibility towards the content/context of the verses; only that the links work. Cyril March 5, 2006 19:23 (Central Time)
[edit] Demonomania
I was thinking there needed to be a full section on Demonomania, which gives a little more of a scientific explanation. But, then again, that might give it more of a POV. Anyone agree or disagree?
[edit] Demonic possession in modern society.
Maybe a section entitled 'Demonic possession in modern society' should be included on this page. --Alan Алан アラン 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Demonic possession in Medicine
The phrase "who are facing a collective hysteria" taken in context was not grammatical (it appears to have been intended as the main clause). I have replaced it with "we are facing" which seems to best fit the intent. I also respelled "parts" as "parties". Shannock9 09:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Demonic possession in Fiction
I've added this heading where I think it goes: separating existing material; and added a reference to Hex (TV Series).
I patterned this edit on the Exorcism entry. However I am new to editing so please excuse (and fix it) if I have not got it quite right.
Shannock9 10:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simon Magus a case of demonic posession?
Would someone explain to me why the case of Simon Magus offering to buy miraculous abilities from the Apostles counts as a case of demonic posession. Frotz661 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
