h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Done

Hi Kevin

I've just found this today, though it seems it's come a long way since it first entered PR. I noticed you hadn't been around for awhile, so I wondered if you were still working on it? If so, I've found some more punctuation/spelling errors that should be corrected. Let me know if you'd like to see what I found .

I'm still more then happy to fix punctuation and spelling errors. It's eseentialy written its only a matter of getting the editing done as far as I can see so please do send them.

I've had another read, and found a (good) few minor spelling and punctuation errors:

Sumaria --> Sumeria

exorcism like the belief in demons is practiced --> exorcism, like the belief in demons, is practiced

(Matthew 16:11 he grants this --> (in Matthew 16:11 he grants this
roles of specific demons, etc) :Lose the bracket

the weakest rank of spirits these beings --> the weakest rank of spirits, these beings

The second is also drawn from scripture, and is yet to come. Namely thein Antichrist of Revelation --> The second is also drawn from scripture, and is yet to come; namely the Antichrist of Revelation
two deserve special mention the Malleus Malleficarum --> two deserve special mention: the Malleus Malleficarum

Of these two are --> Of these, two are

Signifigant --> significant

demonic to quickly --> demonic too quickly

some where --> somewhere

a final figure deserves particular mention. The late father Malachi Martin --> a final figure deserves particular mention: the late father Malachi Martin

simplicities sake --> simplicity's sake

they commit these crimes as a result of their choices --> they commit these crimes, then as a result of their choices

there status --> their status

number of the divine Father, son and the holy ghost, Wicca rule of three --> number of the divine: Father, son and the holy ghost; Wicca rule of three;

a person to badly --> a person too badly

difference in a moment will be covered in a moment --> lose one of the 'in a moment's

straightforward. To isolate --> straightforward to isolate

that person support structure --> that person's support structure

While sensationalistic the movie --> While sensationalistic, the movie

the only thing that to my knowledge has never been reported in a documented case is the girls head spinning completely around a feature that's improbable at best considering the nature of human anatomy --> the only thing that to (this researcher's/ the author's) knowledge has never been reported in a documented case is the girl's head spinning completely around: a feature that's improbable at best considering the nature of human anatomy

argue till their blue in the fact --> argue till they're blue in the face

its not even --> it's not even

While not properly speaking a form of demonology --> While not, properly speaking, a form of demonology


Also, what is parapsychology?

Kevin, Hi.

I just checked out four pages of the thread, and I have to say I'm disappointed that nobody seems to be concerned that much of your 'research' references are novels and popular movies.

I like the piece, overall, and appreciate that you have some worthwhile references; but 'The Exorcist' and 'Amityville' were fictionalized versions of alledgedly real occurences. That sounds pretty dodgy from a research angle.

The authors, in order to sell books, would obviously have a motive for sensationalizing and embellishing. Even the time compression creates a sense of urgency great for books and films, but does not do much for accurate reporting.

I'd suggest that you find more serious works from which to draw theories, examples and conclusions. I can't imagine an EG entry getting made from these sources, unless they were reviews.

I could be wrong, and wish you success with the piece; but not with the inclusion of this kind of research material.

Well, what if the entry was clearly focused on "Popular Demonology" -- essentially, how demonology is portrayed in popular culture?

That would work for me.

No, that wouldn't work. This entry seems to be more concerned with real demonology, which is why Kevin makes it plain at the start that it is not a discussion of Buffy or Angel.

Both the Exorcist and Amityville are extremely well documented examples of what does happen. They're commonly listed by authorities in the field becuase of this. Bear in mind in particular that the movie The Exorcist has two jesuit priests working as advisors to keep it technically accurate some thing they did exceptionally well with.

Re the changes on grammar and spelling I'll get to them some time this week.

Kev, Hi.

I consider well-documented to be beside the point. Yes, they are often cited, but that doesn't make them good source material. They are still sensationalized accounts, and sometimes downplayed the more horrible and ominous aspects of possession, etc. 'Authorities' should know better, and use the same original sources as the 'documenters' and 'advisors'.

The authors compress and expand time to suit the narrative. They skip months and incidents. The movie makers highlight the visually interesting, while downplaying the involved and complex interplay between the attacked and the attackers, as well as those who try to help. Each step dilutes and distorts the facts more, to suit the media being used.

They are still from 'real' accounts, but not 'accurate' by a long shot. If you truly feel the subject is worth writing about, it deserves better sources with more meat.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

Kevin, here are the errors I found that I don't think Hussassin listed above:

in Pre Christian Demonology
- In many early cultures, what gods they serve are seen as violent beings you appease, and not loving parental figures. >>
The gods who serve? Humans or the malevolent spiritual forces? Better phrased "... violent beings to be appeased,"?
- ...oldest formalized system that maintained records dates back to Sumaria and Babylon. >> Perhaps provide a date?

in Christian Demonology
- ...these books were most concerned... >> mostly or primarily concerned
- Exorcism also was first formally structured with in the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. >> This sentence would make more sense as the first in the next paragraph. Also 'with in' s/b within.
- Titles of books should appear in italics.

in Invitation
- ... the talking board company of Salem, Massachusetts .. >> the Talking Board Company of Salem, Massachusetts,

in Infestation
- Demons show considerably greater power then ghosts... >> than ghosts
- (poltergeists are believed to in fact be a form of devil and not in fact psychic kids at least in demonology). >> only use 'in fact' once, use comma after kids
- ...when it terrifies a person to badly... >> too badly

in Possession
- spirit only is there from time to time in possession ... >> time to time, in
- While sensationalistic the movie "The Exorcist" is accurate... >> senstaionalistic, the movie
- ...the preview of established science... >> the purview of
- (one can argue till their blue in the fact about parapsychology but its not even remotely established as a serious science so its footing is not superior to demonology). >> this could probably be said in a better way, but as it is 'their' should be they're

in Deliverance Ministry
- ...the Protestant aspects of Christianity... >> Protestant denominations


On the topic of the relevance of your sources, I think it's acceptable to cite the films as they are sources a layperson would have access to for their own reference. So long as you've made it clear that theatre *is* sensationalised (which it appears you have, although I'll check again), and what the primary differences are between what is seen on the screen and what you actually do.

Ok first of all in so far as the films which are to an extent sesationalized but less then most people might think(I've personally participated in the first radio interview given by George and Kathy Lutz in 28 years along with the first interview ever given in any media by Chris Lutz, interviews with the first reporter on the scene of the defeo murders and several other principles in the Amityville case) they on the whole give a very accurate depiction of what does occur. The only signifigant error in terms of what is probable(or even common) in either movie I directly address in the text(the head spinning in the exorcist). In point of fact the Amityville case can even be defined as mild in relation to the larger field of reported phenomenon(compare the phenomenon there to say the succubus attack detailed in both the book and the movie "The Haunted). I would also point out these are two sources amongst a list taken directly from THE premere authorities in the field today. Father Armoth, Ed Warren, and Father Martin have decades of experience behind them. The two better known examples I sited have a cheif advantage over the others in that they are readily available and still in print where most of the other books are not.

Personally, I don't have anything against including sources like those in the entry -- but I can see how it might be a good idea to incoporate material from more.... scholarly sources as well?

In the section on "deliverance ministry", it might be worthwhile to incorporate a bit about the concept of "spiritual warfare", and what that means today. I've seen it used in both Protestant and Catholic contexts, with somewhat different meanings and practices between them.

This following sentence may need some revising:

"In the 1990’s, the Church updated it further adding new prayers and the stipulation that a complete psychological and medical evaluation had to be completed before it was considered as an option."

From what I recall, it's not merely that evaluations must be performed, it's that evaluations must be performed, and medical and psychological professionals need to conclude that the problem is not medical or psychological in nature, and that further medical and/or psychological treatment would not solve the problem. The way you've written it, it does sound a tad 'pro forma'.

I think the entry could also use some work towards the aim of being well-balanced -- i.e., making it clear that even within organizations or religions in some way associated with demonology, exorcisms, and/or spiritual warfare, there is still considerable controversy among members, leaders, and the hierarchy on the issue.


Mikey

Oh, and your entry definitely seems to imply (if not outright state) that Ed Warren holds a position within the Roman Catholic Church -- I have never seen evidence of this, and have seen statements to the contrary....

Mr Warren's status is in fact exactly as stated in the article. The church doesn't necissarily always happily pronounce this but then again the church has made numerous attempts to deny the fact a number of recognized exorcists still work under its jurisdiction through out the world. In terms of the extreme ammounts of contraversy it doesn't seem to be directly relevent to the point of the article. The main thrust is a discusion of the history and theory of practicing demonologists not a detailed examination of the objective reality or lack there of behind belief in the subject. If I was to focus on a specific case(as I will be doing with Amityville when time permits) then showing both believer stand points and those of skeptics would be important. To examine the beliefs its not relevent. If you read a text on Taoism is it necissary to present hard evidence that the Tao exists or to simply present what Taoists believe? Demonology is first and foremost a branch of theology and as such an aspect of religion. In regards to discussing spiritual warfare there is certainly a valid point to some extent. The cheif problem is it tends to be more some thing deliverance ministers ramble on about and as already noted deliverance ministry is not properly part of demonology in the vast majority of examples. Going into great depth about its exact beliefs belongs more properly to an article on faith healing then on demonology.

I agree with most of what Kevin is saying, but there is one other point - The Mallaeus Maleficarum. This was in truth largely a work of imaginative fiction. It was written by a couple of priests who did not bother to research anything properly, merely wrote down some superstitions and a few of their own beliefs and conclusions regarding withces and demons. While it deserves mention, it should not really be taken seriously.

Kevin, I would agree with that, if it wasn't for the fact that the entry as it stands can give the impression that the beliefs you state in regards to Demonology are held as true across the entirety of some groups, when in fact, they are not.

Well, if you're claiming that Mr Warren has official status with the Catholic Church, and the Church is claiming that he doesn't, I'd like to see some form of evidence, rather than just your (or his) assertion -- after all, I can claim all sorts of things, but it doesn't make them true. I can claim to be President, but no one here is going to believe me without some sort of proof. If there isn't any actual proof, and only his assertions, then I think it's important to come right out and say that, rather than stating it as a bald fact.

Ok in regards to the Malleus I do tend to agree. It is on the other hand a historical text of demonology accurate or not and gets mentioned as such. In regards to Mr. Warren his status has largely been unchallenged for the 50+ years he has worked in the field. It has been only very recently that two individual archdioses(one in Coneticut and and PA) both very well known for there stuborn denial of this aspect of Catholic tradition have attempted to claim otherwise.

In regards to the disagreement on the subject you have a point to an extent. But the principle disagreements fall between the emphirical existence of pretenatural evil, and doctorinal disputes between faith healers and exorcists. The goal of the article was a broad discussion of the discipline of demonology and not in fact a discussion of the existence or non existence of demons. The majority of people that disagree are people who are not formally trained in demonology and are really just armchair experts.

Kevin, Hi!

You've just piqued my interest again. What constitutes 'formally trained in demonology'? Seriously. I have no idea how one would go about getting formally trained. Is it in the entry? Did I just miss it? (entirely possible)

About the whole monks or priests writing thing:
Remember that there were long periods where the ruling classes did not encourage the population to become educated. Many times it was ONLY the religious that got trained and utilised the art.

As such, they were often pressed into service copying old documents, translating old documents, or relating old stories; not necessarily writing that which they believed, or that which was condoned. Many times they would create the new book, but put notes in the margins like: 'This is obviously false'.

Obviously, I'm not familiar with that particular manuscript; so all decisions are yours.

Formal training depends heavily on ones religious back grounds. A handful of seminaries still teach courses in demonology although over the years its become far rarer. In most traditions its a matter passed down from teacher to student. Each demonologist studies under a predicessor(as do exorcists in most cases) who in turn studied under another expert. It serves to keep a tighter control on the knowledge(much of which is in fact extremely dangerous spiritualy and in some cases physically requiring detailed study of the worst occultists and there workings). MOst layman and priests get a very minimal lesson in demonology at best. They're told possession is rare, or that it doesn't happen at all, that there is a devil, etc. Pretty much little more then any one can sort out by reading the Gospels(don't get me wrong the gospels contain a large volume of excelent information but its like calling yourself a nuclear phycist beacuse you read and understand a book by the worlds leading authority on the subject).

For myself I'm a student and investigator with Mr. Gentile who's background I cover in my piece.

That certainly sounds like training, all right. I'm not so sure about the 'formal' part, if the training hasn't been 'formalised' (standardised). It sounds a lot more like an apprenticeship, which I can respect as much as an institutionalized program.