Talk:List of theological demons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leonard[edit]

Is there really a demon of folklore named Leonard?

 Done Not now there isn't, presumably past vandalism ϢereSpielChequers 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Now, this is strange. I was doing research on demons to try and make a conclusive guide... And I found Leonard! I can't find the original source, but here he is [1]. I was NOT expecting that! Apparently, he is "Grandmaster of the Sabbaths."Sea Captain Cormac 20:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Context of list[edit]

Any context to this list? What source/culture/fiction does this list apply to?

Seems to be "all of them": I've seen demons from ebraic culture (such as Lilith, if I recall correctly), greek (kerberus), european (succubi and incubi), mesopothamic (Pazuzu) as well as fiction (jubilex, from chtulu mythos); and this is just a first glance. Also I'm not so sure if they're all demons, or some of them could be considered a god or something like that by some.
Maybe the list could become useful anyway if some reference was given to the source/culture/fiction of each demon, since some occultist seem to consider all of them together somehow. Valhalla 11:08 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The list does not specify religions or mythologies, but I'm according to Valhalla in some concepts. Fictional demons have nothing to do with specific demons. Some gods were removed from this page, like Balor, Lugh, and others, but the Asuras were placed there again. Besides, somebody listed some demons with every different spelling he/she found, so there are lots of them repeated once and again. Besides, some demons like Bifrons, Seir, Vine, Tannin and Wall (? maybe a misspelling for Vual) were linked to other definitions concerning different things, and they were changed into "Vine (demon)", as an example, because it is ridiculous that some one clicks on Vine and finds a plant instead of a demon. Many of the articles on the demons give references to the books or authors that mentioned them. The Warlock 07:44 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I had forgotten to say that many of those demons were taken from The Lesser Key of Solomon and Pseudomonarchia Infernalis.The Warlock 10:37 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That's useful information, thank you! Could you please add this source info to the individual demon articles, please? That would really help the NPOV policy, in which controversial information is attributed to who makes the statement or has the belief. It would be useful to know who believes in these demons, whether different sects/sources believe the same things, etc. 217.158.106.44 10:41 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Maybe the page would make more sense if there were also other names of the said demons (maybe only the (or a) main one with a link, and the other without, unless an article already exists for both names), as well as a short note of context.

I'll try and add such notes for the few ones I know, but I'm afraid that some ones will have to make most of the work. If at the end it is decided that they aren't needed feel free to remove them.

Also, I don't think that fictionary demons should be removed, only properly contextualized. Valhalla 20:52 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Until what I could, the page is contextualised. If more information is available, more contextualisation will be added. The Warlock 10:27, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

List of fictional demons[edit]

 November 2008 - Only took 4.5 years! ϢereSpielChequers 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Juiblex because it was the only fictional demon listed; if someone wants to create a list of fictional demons - that is, demons that have not been historically believed to be real - they can include him there instead of here. -Sean 02:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If someone does create that then we have two more that I've just moved here from the article:

ϢereSpielChequers 19:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More fictional ones:

ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last fictional one:

I been seeing what I believe to be a demon at night when I close my eyes and I can't get this image out if my head I am looking for any one who can help me identify him . He is kneeling when I see him and when he turns n looks at me he is skinny with longer curly black hair with blood red eyes and his face seems to change a lot. 

Mrs.Locke77 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Why is Allah on this tlist as it is a synonym for God? -Macarro

 Done Vandalism - its gone now and any addition needs to linked to something defined as a demon or out they go! ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lucifer?[edit]

lucifer is an angel, not a demon. he got kicked out of heaven, but that doesnt make you a demon. he may have become a demon afterwards, but he was no longer lucifer by then. on the other hand (as everything in the christian mythology) lucifer is stolen from other mythologies and such, and lucifer was some sungod in some tribes. he may have been a demon in certain contexts, but in christian mythology lucifer was the top angel that may have become satan in a much later stage. it should be edited or removed--Lygophile 04:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page exists to list demons in a broad variety of settings, (from Judeo-Christian-Islamic through ancient civilizations like Assyria and Egypt) Lucifer is certainly an applicable inclusion, as per your statement, "he may have been a demon in certain contexts." Doubtless, according to Christian mythology Lucifer was an exalted angel, but just as doubtless, according to Christian mythology an angel that is kicked out of Heaven becomes a demon. Zahakiel 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i doubt that. being kicked out of heaven is just getting your wings clipt, theres a lot of room between ultimate good and ultimate evil. and the point is..i wouldnt know if the term 'lucifer' is ever officially used to mean a demon. if it is then ok, but only if it is.--Lygophile 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also shouldnt say 'christian demonology' then01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You wrote, "i doubt that. being kicked out of heaven is just getting your wings clipt, theres a lot of room between ultimate good and ultimate evil." Not in Christian thought when dealing with spiritual beings. I do not know of any source recognized in orthodox Christianity that speaks a "middle ground" for spirits, outside of perhaps Origen; and especially not this spirit. Lucifer does officially refer to the leader of the demons in almost every modern mainstrean Christian resource of which I am aware. See the entry on Demons (In the New Testament and Christianity), which includes the phrase, "It should be noted that some denominations asserting Christian faith also include, exclusively or otherwise, fallen angels as de facto demons," therefore the "Lucifer" entry more than qualifies for this particular list. Zahakiel 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in "Christian mythology", as you guys term it, Lucifer was an archangel along with Michael and Gabriel. When Lucifer was kicked out along with the angels that followed him, they became demons with him as their leader. He then became known as Satan. Also, being kicked out of heaven DOES make the angels demons. Deflagro 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just goes to show how stupid christian mythology is. but it totally fits in the christian ideology, they see everything in black and white. being a 'virtuous' jew, a 'virtuous' moderate scepticist christian, an imbicil or an unbaptised flawless christian are the only ways to be in the middle i think. and then they claim all men are created equal..:/--Lygophile 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uvall[edit]

Uvall is disambiguation, linking it to Vual would only be natural though i dont know which name is more appropriate, just wanted to point this out so someone with expertise can decide what to do. --AlexOvShaolin 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I've directed the wiki-link to Vual, but I have preserved the existing spelling in the list that is actually displayed, since I believe that is the more common term... it's hard to tell, and lists like this where there are many a.k.as and variant spellings have the potential to be confusing. ◄Zahakiel► 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demons and gods[edit]

Hi folks, I wanted a tidy list of demons for a random word experiment and came here to find this list. Many of these listed demons are actually Gods.

This list needs to have the Gods removed from it because they are not demons, they are gods. If you click on the names many lead to pages that define them clearly as gods of history.

I didn't want to edit your list right away but it definitely should be trimmed or re-thought if it is to have any accurate meaning.

I think being clear about exactly what you mean by the word 'demon' would be quite helpful in this case. for instance if you are specifically listing what would be considered demons in Christianity you can lump every god, spirit or entity other than those specifically described as sanctioned by Jesus or Jehovah into the demonic category.

If you prefer the Hellenist daemon you are then more or less describing things like Greek Genii, the genius of a person or location.

If on the other hand you mean, 'malevolent spirit' then again there are questions as to which gods would belong in that category and much debate over whether Jehovah and or Jesus would be included.

It does indeed seem that your list is biased toward the Abrahamic religions and against others and probably you could change the title to 'Christian Demons'. Of course then you might include a very many more.

Here is my scratching-the-surface list of errors: 

    Ammut - questionable, almost always a goddess of evil turned good and restrainer of evil.
    Anzu A god.
    Astarte a goddess, equivalent of Ishtar. Not a demon at all.
    Chemosh - a god of Moab
    Chimera, a monster not a demon
    Chupacabra - a monster
    Dagon - Fish headed God of the philistines.
    Deicide - Deicide means murder of god, nothing to do with any demon whatsoever.
    Eurynome  greek mnythology, never a demon sometimes a daughter of a god, etc
    Hantu - classical Chinese writing according to the wiki, no reference to any demons
    Jaydeep - no reference cited.???
    Mojo - is a bag or hand from hoodoo nothing to do with a demon
    Ninurta  - a major Sumerian god, not a demon at all
    Nix - again not demons, not considered demons.
    Osiris A major Egyptian deity. Not a demon in the least.
    Riku  - what is this?

Set - a major Egyptian god, to label Set as a demon since he destroyed Osiris would be similar to labeling Jehovah demonic because he destroyed Baal. Fine if you include all murderous gods as demons, which would be most of them.

I have not checked every single listing. No doubt there are more errors. Thotheros 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point in some of what you've said, but in modern use "demon" (see the Wikipedia entry) does primarily bring to mind the Abrahamic view, and would thus merit the inclusion of "heathen" deities; these are seen as decidedly malevolent from a Judeo-Christian standpoint. Some like Astarte and Chemosh merit particular mention. If you look at the entry for God, for example, you will see that it is strongly representative of the monotheistic view, since that is the most common connotation today. Essentially, if you can find a valid source to verify that these entities were called "demons," they do belong in this list. Astarte, for example, describes the goddess and then goes on to point out that she/it is considered a demon by Judaic and western religions. Since this is a general list of demons, that must be taken into account or that tradition must be ignored entirely. Since the Abrahamic tradition is one of the main bodies of work that defines what a demon is, that is not a feasible approach, and you are naturally going to find that viewpoint strongly reflected. This is not a matter of bias so much as the state of the field. ◄Zahakiel► 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) ".... in modern use "demon" ... does primarily bring to mind the Abrahamic view..."

Ok so this is primarily a list of Abrahamic demons?

2) "..., and would thus merit the inclusion of "heathen" deities; these are seen as decidedly malevolent from a Judeo-Christian standpoint. Some like Astarte and Chemosh merit particular mention..."

So in a list of Abrahamic or Judaic demons these warrant attention, and so would every god ever named that is not Allah/Yaweh/Jehovah or Jesus. Should the Kaballists names for god be included as well, though it is the same god?

3) "...If you look at the entry for God, for example, you will see that it is strongly representative of the monotheistic view, since that is the most common connotation today...."

The definition of God is irrelevant to the definition of a list of demons unless you are stipulating the demons of a particular god. If you are pointing out that because Jehovah or Jesus are popular that any list having to do with a common theme of religion must be dominated by their believers beliefs or their texts, well that seems wrong. The facts are now popular facts? The title should maybe switch to 'popular demons'?

4) "Essentially, if you can find a valid source to verify that these entities were called "demons," they do belong in this list..."

That makes sense but what is to be considered valid? Every book by Hal Lyndsey or any Judaic cult of the 20th century? There would likely be hundreds of new demon names. The book series Xanth by Piers Anthony with lists dozens of demons?

5) I see your point with Astarte if it is a list of Judaic demons or 'mostly Judaic but sometimes otherwise demons'.

6) ... "Since this is a general list of demons," that must be taken into account or that tradition must be ignored entirely... "

This seems to be the crux of the matter, is it a general list or a specific list? If it is general then at least some orthodox or traditional source should call the alleged demon a demon or malevolent supernatural entity. Fictional demons will not fit that category and neither will 'every deity outside the Judaic (tri)monotheism', even though Judaism does include all of those as 'evil and demonic'.

7)"Since the Abrahamic tradition is one of the main bodies of work that defines what a demon is, that is not a feasible approach, and you are naturally going to find that viewpoint strongly reflected. This is not a matter of bias so much as the state of the field. ◄Zahakiel► 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)"

Ok, I get that you are saying it's a general list dominated by the religion that created the word. However many religions have names for the same concept and some of them are included. (Japanese, Norse, Slavic, Egyptian etc...) At last some historical religions would very likely include all external deities as competitive and malevolent. That would place the jUdaic gods int he list too.

Could then, the list be pared down and added too only for those demons whom are named in reasonably orthodox or reasonably traditional sources as a demon?

I have never for instance seen the Sumerian Ninurta listed in any Judaic text as a demon. It is implausible, if he is to be included all external deities should just be thrown in the list.

I am just trying to make some sense of it of course. There must be some reason or rule or the exceptions to the general should be pointed out.

Thanks for elcucidating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thotheros (talk • contribs)

  • Reply follows:
Those are all really good questions to ask when looking this list over. I've done a lot of work maintaining it from vandals and others who add any entity they think "might" fit the bill, to the degree where I've wondered if it should be semi-protected at times. But with that in mind, I realize also that this is one of the difficulties an article like this, the title of which may have several legitimate definitions, faces. Some of the questions you ask have relevance to this idea. For example you ask:
  • Ok so this is primarily a list of Abrahamic demons?
In a way... Just from observation, it seems that this is a list of "demons" as defined by characteristics commonly attributed to the Abrahamic entities thus identified. In other words, the Yokai from Japan are from an entirely different tradition, and are not always strictly "evil," but they share enough characteristics with the Western conception to have the term for them translated to "demon" by notable sources, and thus are included.
  • So in a list of Abrahamic or Judaic demons these warrant attention, and so would every god ever named that is not Allah/Yaweh/Jehovah or Jesus. Should the Kaballists names for god be included as well, though it is the same god?
Well, we have to remember that there is both a "consensus" and a "notability" element at work here also, which is not the same as "popularity" (see my comment on your later question below). In general non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods would be seen as demons by default in these worldviews, but as you rightly point out, including everything that is valid "by default" would result in an untenable list. Thus we would want to have only those figures that are directly identified as demonic in the appropriate literature, and that general readers of this list would understand to be accurately described by the list's topic. This is actually something you suggest below, so I'll say more about it there.
  • The definition of God is irrelevant to the definition of a list of demons unless you are stipulating the demons of a particular god. If you are pointing out that because Jehovah or Jesus are popular that any list having to do with a common theme of religion must be dominated by their believers beliefs or their texts, well that seems wrong. The facts are now popular facts? The title should maybe switch to 'popular demons'?
You have a point, of course, in the last thing you say - but one that is already taken into account by Wikipedia's policies. As I've mentioned, I have done a lot of removing spurious entries on this list, because somebody's artistic streak led them to invent a demon for a drawing they did during recess, and they want the name listed here. My statement about the definition of God was relevant in that I was showing the state of the discussion re: spiritual entities. The religions that have the most to say about them are going to get more "airtime" in listing them or describing them. I could just as easily have used the demon article or the angel article to the same effect. That having been said, this does not mean that every minor spirit will be listed either. Rather than "popular demons," the list should be about "notable demons," and this is exactly what every list on Wikipedia should (at least ideally) contain - notable elements. What we need to do is hold it to that standard, and this has not always been consistently done in the article's history.
  • [Finding a valid source to verify that these entities were called "demons"] makes sense but what is to be considered valid? Every book by Hal Lyndsey or any Judaic cult of the 20th century? There would likely be hundreds of new demon names. The book series Xanth by Piers Anthony with lists dozens of demons?
I think that also takes care of itself re: the "notability" clause. As long as we do not use the reasoning that "Since it's not God/Allah/Jehovah it's a demon," but find specific sources that classify it as such, and only include those covered by multiple sources (or extensively covered in one really notable one) we should be fine. In general, I think it's best that every element on this list have its own individual Wikipedia entry so that these sources can be presented there for anyone doing research (which is the point of all this anyway, to provide a reasonable resource for further study). It would also ensure no misunderstandings, for example with the Yokai issue. Interested readers would go to that entry and see the shades of meaning present there that are quite distinct from the "epitome of evil" that other names here might bring to mind. Having individual entries would also ensure that each element of the list meets the criteria I'm suggesting (that seems to have been semi-followed de facto already) here. Hal Lyndsey is Evangelical, I believe, and so he's not going to be inventing "new" demons, while an obscure Judaic cult could not do anything to merit so find-grained a discussion of its theological views on the spiritual world. If it did, it would no longer be obscure :)
  • I see your point with Astarte if it is a list of Judaic demons or 'mostly Judaic but sometimes otherwise demons'.
In reply to your first comment I gave what appears to be the overall theme of the list, and Astarte definitely qualifies there. This figure has been featured in numerous, extensive works that classify her as a "demon" in the primary tradition that uses that term in a way that would be understood by the Western mind. Now, the rules of engagement about "demons" might be different in the Japanese or Mediterranean Wikipedia, but avoiding systematic bias does not mean we ignore the effect of culture on our word definitions. It can be a fine line at times, and I appreciate that... we just have to be careful to define our criteria, and I think you are understandably concerned that we do this well.
  • This [the nature of the list] seems to be the crux of the matter, is it a general list or a specific list? If it is general then at least some orthodox or traditional source should call the alleged demon a demon or malevolent supernatural entity. Fictional demons will not fit that category and neither will 'every deity outside the Judaic (tri)monotheism', even though Judaism does include all of those as 'evil and demonic'.
Agreed and agreed. It is a general list, and this means we have to be diligent to be discerning (even, perhaps, exclusivist) in our approach. Fictional demons are generally the first to be deleted, and non-notable non-Judaic demons are next. There are, as always, exceptions; if a literary figure. (e.g., Errtu) has received a lot of coverage and is explicitly defined as a demon in the literary world with which it is involved, then there will be no controversy as to whether or not it is a "demon" when it is discussed in its own context. The (sources) comment associated with each name identifies literary demons from those of religious traditions, and I don't know of anyone that this has confused.
  • Ok, I get that you are saying it's a general list dominated by the religion that created the word. However many religions have names for the same concept and some of them are included. (Japanese, Norse, Slavic, Egyptian etc...) At last some historical religions would very likely include all external deities as competitive and malevolent. That would place the Judaic gods in he list too.
If not the religion that "created" the word, certainly the one that has made the most verifiable, notable use of it. You're certainly right that an ancient Babylonian would see Elohim/Yahweh as a competitive deity that led a people antagonistic to his values and cultures, but I don't think you're going to get consensus in the English Wikipedia to list "God" as a demon. Mere competition is not enough, for in the ancient world the Hebrews were fairly unique in identifying the gods of other nations as demonic. There were, in fact, individuals who worshipped demons from a number of countries just to make sure they hit the right one. Monotheism is quite different in this respect, and that is one of the reasons why Monotheistic traditions have the most to say about this matter.
  • Could then, the list be pared down and added too only for those demons whom are named in reasonably orthodox or reasonably traditional sources as a demon?
I think that's a reasonable approach, but you have to be very careful there, because none of us know everything. For example...
  • I have never for instance seen the Sumerian Ninurta listed in any Judaic text as a demon. It is implausible, if he is to be included all external deities should just be thrown in the list.
Ninurta is discussed in heavily-referenced resources like Dictionary of Deities and Demons in The Bible by van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst, where it is identified with Kaiwan and Nisroch, both of which appear in the Biblical cannon. I hope all that clarifies further. ◄Zahakiel► 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zahakiel, you have made the nature of the list very clear now and I think it would be great if you could consolidate your very lucid answers into a concise description prepended to the list. That would aid those who would like to use, add or omit listings and alleviate you from having to re-explain the character of the list to people like me. I had actually made edits, thinking no one had replied to my queries and then realized you had responded. I undid my edits and read your first response and realized at that time, I had better be more careful and cautious before modifying anything in Wikipedia.

I thank you you for your well thought out answers and laud you for your excellent work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thotheros (talk • contribs)

Deicide - one last thing here[edit]

I cannot find Deicide as a demon name and it is not an egyptian word. It means to kill god. I had forgotten to mention that entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thotheros (talk • contribs)

Quite right. I've removed that one. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional demons[edit]

Shouldn't there be a list of fictional demons? TheBlazikenMaster 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Demon: Titivillus[edit]

Name: Titivillus Rank: Minor Imp duties: Patron demon of scribes and calligraphers

In the middle ages, (prior to the invention of the printing press) the Holy Bible could only be duplicated by means of hand-copying the entire text. (!) In popular medieval belief, Satan kicked Titivillus out of hell each morning with an empty sack and told the imp he couldn't come home until the sack was full of transcription errors.

Current status: Not on the demons listing.

He does, however, have his own wiki page:

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Titivillus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.72.129 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious redlink Kwantomm[edit]

I find this entry suspicious: 

Kwantomm (romanian demonology)

All the google hits are taken from this page, and it looks like a misspelling of "quantum". Unless someone can come up with evidence for it, I'll remove it. --Jamoche 17:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damien?[edit]

Um, I'm, pretty sure Damien isn't part of christian mythology, but just simply the name of the supposed "son of the devil" in "The Omen" 71.114.71.169 22:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a Saint On List of Demons Page[edit]

Don't we have enough Christian art on Wikipedia? Why should there be a picture of a saint/angel on the list of demons page? I am removing this image from the page as I know the Christian mindset behind the insertion of such an image, disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.208.250 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most vandalized?[edit]

I wonder if there is a list somewhere of "most vandalized pages on Wikipedia." I think this one would be in the running. ◄Zahakiel► 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it is up there with MILF & Russell Brand. I'm going to propose semi protection to stop people vandalising without at least registering. ϢereSpielChequers 11:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi protected for a fortnight. I think a list of most vandalised pages would just encourage the vandals, it also varies over time - the governor of Alaska has been mighty popular of late. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yachthanabas, The Gnostic Demon[edit]

Pistis Sophia CHAPTER 103

"And with haste they take pity on it quickly, to lead it up out of the chaos and lead it on the way of the midst through all the rulers. And they [sc. the rulers] do not chastize it in their harsh judgments, but the fire of their regions troubleth it partly. And if it shall be brought into the region of Yachthanabas, the pitiless, then will he indeed not be able to chastize it in his evil judgments, but he holdeth it fast a short time, while the fire of his chastisements troubleth it partly.

And again they take pity on it quickly, and lead it up out of those regions of theirs and they do not bring it into the æons, so that the rulers of the æons do not carry it away ravishingly; they bring it on the way of the sun and bring it before the Virgin of Light. She proveth it and findeth that it is pure of sins, but letteth them not bring it to the Light, because the sign of the kingdom of the mystery is not with it. But she sealeth it with a higher seal and letteth it be cast down into the body |263. into the æons of righteousness,--that body which will be good to find the signs of the mysteries of the Light and inherit the Light-kingdom for ever.


CHAPTER 140

Of Yachthanabas Again he continued in the discourse and said unto this disciples: "The fifth order, whose ruler is called Yachthanabas, is a mighty ruler under whom standeth a multitude of other demons. It is they which enter into men and bring it about that they have respect of persons,--treating the just with injustice, and favour the cause of sinners, taking gifts for a just judgment and perverting it, forgetting the poor and needy,--they [the demons] increasing the forgetfulness in their souls and the care for that which |371. bringeth no benefit, in order that they may not think of their life, so that when they come out of the body, they are carried in ravishment.

"The souls then which this ruler will carry off in ravishment, are in his chastisements one-hundred-and-fifty years and eight months; and he destroyeth them through his dark smoke and his wicked fire, while they are exceedingly afflicted through the flames of his fire.

"And when the sphere turneth itself and the little Sabaōth, the Good, who is called in the world Zeus, cometh, and he cometh to the eleventh æon of the sphere which is called the Water-man, and when Boubastis cometh to the fifth æon of the sphere which is called the Lion, then the veils which are between those of the Left and those

of the Right, draw themselves aside, and there looketh out of the height the great Iaō, the Good, he of the Midst, on the regions of Yachthanabas, so that his regions are dissolved and destroyed. And all the souls which are in his chastisements are carried off and cast back anew into the sphere, because they are ruined in his chastisements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.169.22 (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

All,

It has been proposed that this page be moved to List of theological demons, with the possibility of creating a separate list for those that have appeared only in works of non-religious fiction; this avoids the NPOV issues implicit in the title, and hopefully will discourage vandalism to an extent. Input appreciated.

James F. (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but would suggest a slightly different boundary - as both Dante's inferno and CS Lewis's screwtape letters count as religious fiction I would suggest a simple fiction / theology divide, in order to get into the theological list a demon would need to be verifiably considered to be a demon by a notable religion. That way various Gods and people would not count as demons just because some preacher denounces them as such. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "List of theological demons" or "list of demons found in major religions" perhaps? and then "list of fictional demons". Ironholds (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Also I've turned List of demons into a disambiguation page. ϢereSpielChequers 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidragasum[edit]

Currently the page for Sindragasun has been redirected to a page about Scat Singing. I don't know if this was vandalism or intentional for some reason, but it seems odd to have a link on a list of demons direct to a page about scat singing. I'd prersonally like the original post restored, if possible.Tweak the Whacked (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its back, but the article is unreferenced and has been shifted from christian to occult. ϢereSpielChequers 09:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Redirect[edit]

So I was slightly interested in names of demons and I noticed one peculiarity. The demon Kobal's page is being redirected to a page about the planet Kobol which is a planet on the show Battlestar Galactica. I'm not sure if there was originally a page for Kobal himself or why the redirect exists, but I figured whoever is helping to maintain this page should be made aware. 69.204.200.18 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tis gone, and Kulak is toast as well. BTW this isn't a protected page, you are welcome to edit it as well. ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uh[edit]

[2] won't someone please semi protect this page... ? DarkoNeko x 18:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't because I've edited this page way too often to consider myself an uninvolved administrator. Feel free to request semi protection at WP:PADLOCK, but have a look at what they protect and decline there - I suspect you'll find that based on the number of vandalisms it receives per day, this page looks more like the sort they decline than that they protect. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional vs theological demons[edit]

At List of fictional demons i expanded the preface to explain the distinction more clearly. --As I understood after skimming this Talk, where I picked up that Screwtape is considered theological because of the purposes of the fiction. (I also made the listings on that page much more uniform, especially the linkage. KI hope it helps.) Near the end of that chore I noticed Wormwood of Screwtape fame in the fictional list. Perhaps I misunderstood this Talk and I was fooled by by Screwtape's absence over there, for he is missing from both. Demons from Dante's Inferno (but no other works?) are listed over there as fictional.

Someone who understands should expand both prefaces accurately, along the lines I have started over there. And Screwtape needs to be added, unless I am too tired to see him. --P64 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpiel at #Proposed move is clear enough but I misunderstood her/m yesterday. I'll try now to improve the prefaces for both categories. ...
Done. The preface must fulfill some function of "See also" (and now does so; please refine it). It may be useful also to organize the "See also". --P64 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St George and the dragon[edit]

second of two new sections

What does St George and the dragon illustrate? Is the dragon a demon? Even if so, (a) there is no entry for any dragon afaik ; (b) all of the entries are proper names afaik. --P64 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orcus[edit]

(related to #Demons and gods)

It seems to me that Orcus does not belong. Read his lead and note Categories: Death gods; Roman gods; Underworld gods; Roman underworld.

Horkos may belong, but carries the Greek deities template {{Greek myth (personified)}}, which suggests not.

P.S. Expanding the preface of this list (up two sections), primarily by explaining the fictional:theological distinction, I have also indicated the demon:god distinction. --P64 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is limited to proper names, usually names of particular demons rather than species, races, or other classes. Right?
If where a reference is desired to Professor Tolkien on orc in his fiction and in old English, Orc#The influence of Old English will serve better than the parallel discussion at Orcus. --P64 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles need parallel attention[edit]

Several articles need parallel attention, at least in the lead section(s) and See also.

Notes on the current 2012-05-21 prefaces:

  • this theological demons cites religion, theology, demonology, mythology, and folklore (and there are many so-called folklore entries)
  • legendary creatures by type cites "mythology, folklore and fairy tales" in contrast to "modern fantasy fiction and role-playing games"
  • legendary creatures cites "historical mythologies" in contrast to "modern invention". It also disclaims "individuals of a particular species".

Legendary creatures, an article graded Start by (WP:MYTH), calls its subject "mythological and folkloric".

This comment may be extended or reformatted. --P64 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding how to define or to describe related lists it may be useful to refer to some categories: Category: Demons; Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings; Category:Fictional characters; God; Gods; Goddesses (and their main articles, of course). --P64 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key: Sources named[edit]

As I save 2012-05-21 18:48 after compiling the Key: Sources named, that list covers all of the parenthetical attributions that are used in the article. Perhaps it should soon omit some that are used, but any current omission is my oversight.

A great majority of the entries specify (usually one) source "demonology", "mythology", or "folklore". Here are the exceptions with numbers of appearances.

  • Islamic eschatology (1)
  • Gnosticism (3)
  • Hinduism (4)
  • Thelema (1)
  • Zoroastrianism (5)
  • nautical folklore (1)
  • Sanskrit,[clarification needed] (1)
  • Testament of Solomon (3; i provided two after seeing one) --Christian in origin? or in publication? or in extant manuscripts?
  • [missing] (7)

--P64 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complex listings[edit]

1. Quote from Valefar): "Other spellings: Malaphar, Malephar, Valafar, Valefor."
2. Three of those four others are redirects, all except Valafar.
3. This article has one listing, (V) "Valefar/Malaphar/Malephar (Christian demonology)" with all three name versions linked.

  • The five spellings are from two neighborhoods in the alphabet so two listings may be appropriate, under M and V.
  • Within each listing that does give multiple names for one demon, there should be only one link and it should be the article name where applicable. The entry should begin with the article name where applicable, regardless of alphabetical order.

Suggested format in the example instance: two listings, "Malaphar, Malephar" and "Valefar, Valafar, Valafar". --P64 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salpsan[edit]

Does the son of Satan "Salpsan," as mentioned in Questions of Bartholomew, qualify to be on this list? Twillisjr (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian demonology but others mythology? Why?[edit]

Why is Wikipedia articles biased against non-Christian religions and beliefs? Why is it Christian demonology but all others are mythology? What is the difference? Please make it correct or also change others to demonology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.113.112 (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the spirits listed from Christian demonology do not appear in any sacred stories, folklore, legends, or myths -- but in spellbooks such as the Lesser Key of Solomon. Most of the spirits from other belief systems appear in sacred stories, folklore, legends -- i.e. myths. Christian demonology (and its imitators) gets into more details regarding individual spirits' activities than most other types of demonology. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian your post is the highest form of hypocrisy and double standard I have ever seen on English Wikipedia. Can you please tell the actual difference between Christian demons and mythological demons? And you say Christian demonology (and its imitators) gets into more details regarding individual spirits' activities than most other types of demonology. and for that I will have to tell you that if that is your standard of what should be classified as demonology and what as mythology then you know actually Hinduism actually goes in far more details about various kinds of demons in Hinduism. Then why is that mythology but not yours? Or you want to suggest that Christians demons actually existed? Please try to be less hypocrite at least on an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.157.45 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your poor vocabulary and ignorance of intermediate religious studies doesn't make me a hypocrite. Instead of .
If any figure (historical person, demon, deity, whatever) from any religion is a character in a sacred story or legend, then that figure is mythical.
If a demon does not appear in any such stories, then that figure appears in demonology. Spirits in the Picatrix would be a part of Islamic demonology but not Islamic mythology. The majority of the spirits listed in the Ars Goetia (which makes up a huge chunk of this list) do not have any stories about them but are given descriptions.
Demonology is, for the most part, made up bullshit. Mythology may or may not be true depending on how you interpret each myth. Not all mythology is demonology, the words are not interchangeable. You clearly do not understand what those words mean so leave the writing to people who do.
I have already explained this before, if you would bother to listen. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what words you use or twist their meanings the underlying fact is anything related to non-Christian and non-Islamic religions and belief systems have to be called as mythology because it supports the hidden agenda of these so-called religions that only they are real and true and all others are based on myths. And your weird explanation doesn't explain why Christian demonology and Islamic demonology is mentioned next to Satan while it is clearly a part of Christian and Islamic myths? Also Devil is part of Christian myths and Dajjal a character of Islamic myths but the article uses the word demonology and not mythology for these mythological characters. Also it doesn't explain why Orcus is a character in Roman mythology but suddenly becomes a character in Christian demonology (see I told you once its part of Christian myths its no more mythology, isn't it?). We all know these weird definitions have been created by Christians to legitimise their myths are real while all other myths (and even real incidences) as myths. Why don't you simply accept that you want your own so-called religion be classified as not myths instead of creating excuses because your excuses and weird definitions clearly fail in the instances I mentioned above?
And for your kind information here is what some dictionaries define demonology as
* Oxford Dictionaries [mass noun] The study of demons or demonic belief.
* Dictionary.com the study of demons or of beliefs about demons.
* Merriam Webster the study of demons or evil spirits
Nowhere these dictionaries define demonology as you define it to spread your Christian agenda on a free knowledge website.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.239.71.236 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're starting to sound like Til Eulenspeigel. Read WP:AGF and WP:RS. The dictionaries you cite do not contradict my definition at all, they do not mention mythology.
What is the story of Valac? What is the lesson to be learned from Vassago? There is no story or lesson -- they appear in books on magic, not mythology. Notice that Picatrix is not listed as Islamic mythology. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, some of these do need to be changed from "demonology" to "mythology" (and vice versa), but it shouldn't be a blind and overzealous blanket switch. It needs to be thought out and consisted. The Antichrist factors into Christian mythology, for example. There are sacred stories about the Antichrist. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Devil not listed as Christian Mythology?[edit]

Devil is very much a part of Myths of Christianity. Then why does this article lists it as Christian demonology and not Christian mythology? Christian Mythology (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is still being overhauled. If the IP (which, judging from your username and WP:NOTHERE userpage, is you) had edited a bit more reasonably, the article would be unlocked and entities which appear in myths (i.e. stories with actual plots) could more easily be labelled as such. As it was, the IP kept labeling figures which have no stories as mythological even though they were just from demonological fiction. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is Biblical rather than mythology because it is in the Bible, so it is more religious than some separate cultural myth. 51.9.80.54 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters[edit]

You know, some of the "demons" listed here aren't actually demons, but rather classical monsters, spirits (neither/both benevolent and malevolent, and quite different from demons) and deities, many of which predate the Christian concept of demons and some of which whose cultures went a long time before being discovered by Christians, and which were later twisted and made out to be or equated to demons by Christians. Should they really still be counted? DoomSkuller (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kali[edit]

Kali is a famous Hindu goddess, "destroyer principally of evil forces" and calling her a demon is extremely offensive to members of the Hindu community. I am therefore removing her from this list. 2001:4898:80E8:9:0:0:0:52D (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New sections go at the bottom. Check links before you remove them, there's a difference between काली (kaa-lee) and कलि (kay-liy). Your reasons do not apply to the villain of the Kalki Purana. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Should Be A Chart[edit]

Demons are getting the short end of the stick, check out the companion page List_of_angels_in_theology 2001:4898:80E8:F:AE1A:EC13:9E1E:3061 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of angels in theology which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver[edit]

This one is listed as from Buddhism but the link just goes to an article about the metal silver. I have never heard of this one either. 51.9.80.54 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New World Demons[edit]

Demons of North and South America. 172.220.15.166 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_theological_demons&oldid=1201271344"