Talk:Classification of demons

Occult High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

Merihem

Why does Merihem redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.227.38.85 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no article on the spirit Merihem in Francis Barrett's classification of demons. Well, there was, but since it didn't have any noteriety outside of being mentioned in Barrett's system, it redirects here. If you want any more info on Barrett's Merihem, you will need to do your own research. If you were looking for an alternate spelling of Mary, Maryam, or Mariam, possibly in research on a name, or possibly in connection with the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, see those articles. Have a nice day. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I don't really understand why this article is called demonology (occultism). Surely a better title would be 'classification of demons'. Particularly since a) the main links to this page are from the redirect 'classification of demons' and b)this link does not have anything more about the study of demons from an occult perspective - it only has classifications of demons c) it has classifications from a christian and an occult perspective. I realise that the word 'demonology' itself can also mean classification of demons. This should be explained on the demonology page.Halon8 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information

I believe that the "Dictionnaire Infernal" section may incorrect. I checked the original book. While it was in French (which I cannot read), I noticed Pluton is not listed among the demons. This makes me wonder if information there is reliable. —Preceding unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:7F00:1D03:2D6F:358D:17FC:D795 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my own copies, I see the entry "Pluton" on page 193 of volume II of the 1818 edition, page 405 of the 1833 edition, page 549 of the 1853 edition.

Roi des enfers, selon les Païens; et selon les démonomanes, archidiable, prince du feu, gouverneur général des pays enflammés, et surintendant des travaux forcés du ténébreux empire. -- 1818 edition

Roi des enfers, selon les païens, et, selon les démonomanes, archidiable, prince du feu, gouverneur-général des pays enflammés, et surintendant des travaux forcés du ténébreux empire. -- 1833 edition

Roi des enfers, selon les païens, et, selon les démonomanes, archidiable, prince du feu, gouverneur général des pays enflammés, surintendant des travaux forcés du ténébreux empire. -- 1853 edition

Plutus is given a different entry in the later editions but not the 1818 edition.

A. E. Waite, in a footnote to the Book of Ceremonial Magic, attributes Pluton as a prince of fire to Johann Weyer's De praestigiis daemonum, but I'm unable to find it in that text. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. —Preceding unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:7F00:1D03:2D6F:358D:17FC:D795 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

misleading interwikilink

@ "first hirarchy", the interlink on "Soneillon" leads to a Dungeons & Dragons subarticle. is this a joke? i came here because german wikipedia sux but it's even worse here. --46.5.5.179 (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azus

I've not been able to find any mention of 'Azus' past other wiki websites that have obviously copied the phrase: "Azus: The Darkness Bearer" from this page. I tried searching google ('azus francis barret the magus') to no avail. I searched for 'Azus' in the google books copy of The Magus also to no avail. I also tried the alternate spelling 'Asus' in these searches. The closest result from a wikipedia search is here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C4%81%C5%BEus and if it wasn't a plural word I might think I was on to something. Can anybody assist with finding the origin of 'Azus'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9AF1:4E70:A808:EB5E:366D:DA96 (talk • contribs)

That's because this IP editor snuck in that (doubly) made up bollocks last year. Thanks for spotting that, I've removed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! I would've done it myself but as an internet layman I can't decipher the edit history xD -preceding 3:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

De Plancy's Hierarchy

I have a copy of Dictionnaire Infernal by Collin de Plancy (1863 edition), and though it's true that this clasiffication of demons appears under the entry "Infernal Court", the hierarchy doesn't come from De Plancy himself. Its original author is actually Alexis-Vincent-Charles Berbiguier, in his work "Des Farfadets, ou Tous les démons ne sont pas de l'autre monde". The Dictionnaire simply copies this info from Berbiguier's work (and cites him as the author), since De Plancy has an encyclopedic goal, and has no interest in creating his own hierarchy. I suggest changing the title of this section, to reflect its original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.219.244 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

It seems to me that because Christian demonology already has a separate article, and the Demonology article is extremely general, that this article should cover the systematic classification of demons as a discipline across religions. In that spirit it seems to me that the article could be expanded to at least include classifications of demons from other Abrahamic religions due to the overlap that has occurred historically in their attempts to describe demons and angels. (The names for the new religion-specific articles could be 'Demons in Judaism' and 'Demons in Islam', given that the corresponding articles on Wikipedia for angels with respect to Abrahamic religions are Christian angelology, Angels in Judaism, and Angels in Islam.) More information could also be imported into more specific articles, for example Christian demonology, allowing for a more in-depth discussion with regard to demons that may only be mentioned in a particular classification system than exists on Wikipedia right now. Webspidrman (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botany

What is classification 117.230.8.239 (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lanterne of Light

The section on the Lanterne of Light keeps being mistakenly edited to change the names of the demons to the ones listed under Peter Binsfeld, rather than the ones in the Lanterne of Light. To try to avoid this happening again I've added a short note at the end of this section to say that later writers such as Binsfeld assigned different demons to each of the sins. The only other option would be to move Binsfeld's section to just after Lanterne of Light, as I'm assuming some editors are getting the two confused and that might help draw a clearer distinction, but as that would move away from the chronological order of each list I've left the order alone for now.86.143.103.247 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can the seven book of moses make me rich

Can the seven book of moses make people rich 41.191.104.44 (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pithius" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pithius has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Pithius until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Break down of demonic structures" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Break down of demonic structures has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Break down of demonic structures until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classification vs. Hierarchy

There seems to be an important confusion in this article. A classification of demons is not a hierarchy of demons. A classification divides in groups. A hierarchy sets ranks, titles and authorities. Only real classifications of demons should be included here, not hierarchies, because hierarchies are something different and they have their own Wikipedia article. (94.174.61.195 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Belphegor

Isn't Belphegor the demon of Sloth? It says Gluttony on this page but if you go to the Belphegor page it says he's the chief demon of Sloth. Lewdguin (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]