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

If you've parked this in Peer Review, I'm guessing that you want this to make it into the Edited Guide.

Check out A53209, which is a handy checklist for creating Guide entries.

The first thing I'd suggest is ditching all 'first person' references.

I'm also guessing that you're either new to GuideML or just don't like it very much, which is fine (I've had my own struggles with it). Whichever Sub-editor ends up with the entry will be able to add some for you but in the meantime any that you can add will help out hugely. You can find the GuideML Clinic at A187229

Content-wise, this is a fascinating entry and really caught my attention. It was informative, clearly well researched and interesting. Good stuff. I'll give it another read or two and see if I can make any suggestions...and hopefully we'll get to see this make it through the PR process and into the Edited Guide!

I read your article with interest.
I find that your brief comment on parapsychology may not be as objective as I think it ought to be. As already suggested, you may want to make your entry less subjective, so that it reads more like an enclopedia entry than a personal account.
May I also suggest that you add a short piece to your article explaining briefly why parapsychology is not an accepted science and also why it does not seem to have a role in demonology, particularly when sometimes cases of possession have been misunderstood as actual cases of mental illness, such as the boy in the story behind 'The Exorcist'?

Also, at least one UK University has a department of Parapsychology: The University of Hertfordshire. It's headed by Dr. Richard Wiseman, in the press not so long ago for his attempts to find causes of ghost-phenomena and relating them to very low frequency sound. He's also been attempting to demonstrate ESP phenomena, without success.

You also have a parapsychology department at Liverpool John Moores University headed by Dr. Mike Daniels
plus Dr. Matthew Smith at Liverpool Hope University
then there's also Dr. Chris French at, I think, Goldsmith's College University of London. And don't forget the major parapsychology departments at the Universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh (Professor Morris is based at Edinburgh) and Dr. Sue Blackmore is based at the University of the West of England.

I forgot to mention that Liverpool Hope University have been conducting a series of Ganzfield Experiments.

Well, let's hope the writer gets back to this at some point and takes note of how seriously academia takes parapsychology.

One thing puzzles me: what do you DO with a parapsych. degree? Who employs parapsychologists?

Some excelent suggestions I will work on at least some of them. At the very least I think a discussion of the fundamental difference between parapsychology and demonology is in order(I am btw new to the guide and still getting used to its workings). The most fundamental of which as I alluded to in the entry is the goal of the two disciplines. Parapsychologists seek to prove the existence of what they do(some thing that thus far has proven completely impossible) while demonologists are more concerned with the pragmatic application. If a parapsychologist video tapes a person floating above the bed they're likely to try to assertain exactly how high it was, what forces natural or pretenatural are cuasing it and then write a dissteration on it. A demonologist would ask is it demonic and if so how do we get rid of it? As religious people demonologists accept the existence of spirits as a part of they're belief and seek primarily confirmation that one is in fact present and an effective way to deal with the problem.

I should probably also add in as was suggested a comment on some of the psychological theories involved. The relationship for example between Dissociative Personality Disorder and Possession as well as the role of sleep paralysis. A good part of the differentiation I've covered I think in discussing the fundamental requirement that some thing for which no psychological explanation exists(ie knowledge of hidden or distant events) in calling a case demonic and not psychological. The larger confusion between the two human phenomenon lies most often in faith healers and deliverance ministers(who regularly cast out every thing from homosexuality demons to pack man spirits and before some one asks I'm NOT making that up) then with demologists and catholic exorcists.

Also regarding how "seriously" parapsychology is taken thats largely exclusive to the UK. I live in the US where most academics consider it some where between a joke and an embarrasement. The famous "tests" of parapsychology are in fact riddled with weak controlls and bad science. The best example would of course been the famous stage magician Uri Geller. He convinced scientists world wide he could bend spoons through the power of will alone. Yet its been neatly demonstrated that A given the same conditions even amateur magicians can easily reproduce all of his feats, and B that if proper controlls are put on experiments to eliminate the possibility of the use of sleight of hand he will either completely fail or refuse to take the test at all. I'd recommend checking out www.randi.org and the standing offer of 1 million dollars to any one who can produce a paranormal phenomenon under properly controlled conditions. No one has ever come close to taking that money and for good reason. At any rate this is ultamitely NOT a discussion of parapsychology as I've said in an earlier response they are different discplines. My main point in bringing them up was to illustrate a difference in approach. I'll reserve a planned more scathing look at the psuedo science for an entry devoted to it.

Leaving aside the charge of pseudoscience for a moment

Malleus Malleficarum, aka The Hammer of Witches, is not about the practice of witchcraft as much as it is a manual on finding, torturing and killing them.

I have been wondering if it might not be better to break this entry up into two shorter ones - perhaps Theory and Practice? It's surprising how much there is to take in and how much information you're trying to fit into a relatively small space.

That would allow you to play with the title some, perhaps make it a little more reader friendly? As it stands, I'm wondering whether people will be expecting a roleplaying article and that does a disservice to the work you've put in.

Have you read the Malleus or the Compendium? Among my files I have english translations of both. Only maybe a third of the book has any thing to do with trying and executing witches. The rest is a discussion of the powers and practices of witches. Every thing from information about the way they curse to whether or not they can produce viable children with demons. The making a second article might not be a bad idea although I still think dividing this one into individual headers is probably the best way to go.

I read the 'Malleus' but I've not got it now and I'm wondering how reliable the translation was.

Do you think a clarification is in order? After all, the Malleus was written so that people could find and identify witches...it might be wise to point out that the book (which is available as a Wordsworth paperback edition for only a couple of pounds) isn't a 'How To'.

Headers is a good way to go! I'm hoping I end up sub-editing this one.

The book wound up getting used heavily as a manual on hunting and destroying witches. As to my own translation it was the one by Montague Summers if memory serves I've got it some where at home and may honestly be confusing its role some what with the Compendium. I'm also guessing finding an edition in England would probably be a lot easier then in the US since it took me years to find the copy I do have.

It might also be worth thinking about Deliverance ministers in the Anglican church who are allowed to officially deal with exorcisms within the UK and that their study background seems to be in psychology.

The point I'm trying to make is that one Deliverance minister stated that most cases of 'possession' that came his way were not actually cases of demonic possession but cases where a person needed counselling than bell and book.

A good point.

I think that the value and practice of Exorcism is probably a Guide entry all on its own (hint hint, TallTony) since it's too big a subject to explore properly here.

Exorcism would make a good guide entry and is decidedly to complex to go into in this one. In terms of deliverance ministry its not quite the same as exorcism. Demonology with in Christianity is primarily the province of the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcople. Most other denominations either pretend demons aren't part of there theology or have no interest in serious study. Deliverance ministers for example are usually only concerned with casting out "spirits" that serious demonologists don't believe in like junk food demons and pack man spirits. Deliverance ministers deal more in psychological problems then what a demonologist would define as the demonic.

Talltony its true that a lot of people who think they need an exorcism in reality need a good psychologist. This is in large part why the Roman Catholic Church now insists any one who is to be exorcised MUST first be evaluated by both a medical doctor and a psychologist. They won't even begin investigating a case with out those evaluations in hand(some thing that cuases a great many headaches). Most modern exorcists prefer to work closely with psychologists(one of my acquaintence is in fact a psychologist and a professional magician as well as a priest making him ideally suited to recognizing the more mundane explanations).

On which note I will mention that the writing of this article was in fact done largely off the cuff. I've read the books I recommended and am in point of fact a student of Lou Gentile. I don't just theorize about demonology I work in the field.