Anyone know if this is a Christian only term? I really don't know. I know lots of cultures have demons, but the whole exorcist part....GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of videos on youtube of muslim exorcisms and from what I've seen the word they use is always translated to exorcism. One difference was in the muslim exorcism I watched they actually converted the jinns (I guess the equivalent of demons) to Islam although after a lot of growling from the supposed possessed and chanting of the koran to apparently hurt it (how it can then be converted I have no idea but hey its religion it doesn't have to make sense). --Sammygirl (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Small but growing numbers of Christians accept exorcism 21st Century, interest exists among different denominations and sects. "
- See your talk page. At this point, i'm just reverting and not trying to fix. Be specific, be precise, do not attack for the sake of "xians suck". then I won't revet.GodotStop the damn screeds! 14:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Why did Godot take stuff out?
Yet the battle between the possessed and the exorcists continues today, with a growing number of people believing that it is all too real:
In February, 2005, about 100 Catholic priests signed up for a Vatican-sanctioned course on exorcism. According to the LA Times, "In Italy, the number of official exorcists has soared during the last 20 years to between 300 and 400, church officials say. But they aren't enough to handle the avalanche of requests for help from hundreds of tormented people who believe they are possessed. In the United States, the shortage is even more acute." In January, 2005, psychiatrist M. Scott Peck published a book, Glimpses of the Devil: A True Story of Evil, Possession, Exorcism and Redemption, which he says is an account of some of his patients that he believes were possessed by the demonic. Although most of his colleagues say that "possession" is just mental illness, Peck told The Dallas Morning News in an interview, "Possession is a mental illness, with a demonic involvement."Even the book and subsequent movie, The Exorcist, was loosely based on a real exorcism that took place in St. Louis in 1949. The last priest involved in the case, Rev. Walter H. Halloran, died on March 1, 2005. Although the book and film took liberties with the actual events of the case, Halloran said he observed streaks and arrows and words like "hell" that would rise on the child's skin. 
The quote above is from a text that I used as a reference and it indicates that interest in exorcism is growing. Godot keeps taking it out. I worked hard to get evidence that this is a growing trend and I feel she's unreasonable to take it out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Proxi - you link to an about.com article from an author who is asserting that not only excorsim, but actual possession is on the rise. You link to a guy who does not say *why* exorcism is on the rise, just that "it is". You don't link to direct sources giving numbers. and you don't try to build your case in the article. (There are indications exorcism is on the rise because of X, Y and Z). You have been chastized for this at wikipedia. understanding sources, and what they mean, and how to use them. I figured you could learn. But there are your options. 1) better citations, or 2) build your own argument. GodotStop the damn screeds! 15:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If I use sources with numbers you will quite likely complain that the numbers are made up. We all know on RationalWiki that spurious statistics are common. This is from the New York Times which I believe is reliable.
There are only a handful of priests in the country trained as exorcists, but they say they are overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil. Now, American bishops are holding a conference on Friday and Saturday to prepare more priests and bishops to respond to the demand. The purpose is not necessarily to revive the practice, the organizers say, but to help Catholic clergy members learn how to distinguish who really needs an exorcism from who really needs a psychiatrist, or perhaps some pastoral care. 
It appears from this article that few westerners want exorcism but the need for priests trained to deal with it is growing. That was what I wrote in the article and that was what you took out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"exorcism on the rise?"
I will try, one last time, to help you understand the difference between making things up, exaggerating, and using misplaced sources, and the acceptable approach of context.
- PC's statement :Exorcism is on the rise. here is an "about.com" article with someone using a secondary link to a paper, and citing two other reasons it's on the rise.
- Where is it on the rise? Here? in Italy? in Russia? everywhere?
- How many people are we talking about? 100 demonic possessions world wide a year? up from 99? or 100,000 up from just 100?
- Better statement: There are some indications that exorcism, and therefore the belief in demonic possession, is still important to some populations. The New York Times (ref) quotes a priest saying that the 10 current priests serving the Hispanic community of CA is not sufficient for the requests for exorcism. (note - I use the word "indications", vs the affirmative "is"; I don't say "on the rise", cause i have nothing to compare with. I don't know if those 10 priests are serving a larger community; i don't know if those 10 priests were a reduction from the 100 they had just 20 years ago... i have no idea except one single article that says "more priests are needed". And my ref (again, something you've been chastised about here and on Wikipedia) is the actual NYT article, THAT I HAVE READ (assuming I'd read it -i didn't), and not just someone saying something someone else reported.
Again, the issues is 1) specificity, 2) precision, 3)sources. This is not hard to do. But it does mean really looking at what your sources are saying, and how you want to represent them and yourself in an article. I realized and strongly support the idea that OPINIONS MATTER here at RW. But you need to be careful of "well argued opinions" vs., agenda driven "I just don't like them and this makes them look bad" toss ins. I have really tried to support you over the year. Help you to make better edits, and better understand how to look at sources and what you want to say. But you don't want to listen. So this is it for me. If this doesn't help you understand, then that's fine. But you'll get reverted without question, if you keep it up. At least on any articles I know something about. Wanna get me off your back, go edit Politics articles, or Evolution articles, or Creationism articles, or Philosophy articles, or science articles. I promise, since i know next to nothing beyond high school in those, I won't comment. GodotStop the damn screeds! 18:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There have been cases when others reverted what I wrote just to get at me, Human did here for example. That's why I get suspicious and defensive whenever I get reverted. If the deliberately unjustified reverts stop it will be much easier for me to judge other reverts. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a Wikipedia editor and I added in the anthropological explanations. I was thinking perhaps that we should expand this article to spirit possession around the world rather than just in an Abrahamic religious context, as it is currently very Eurocentric. Thoughts? Asarelah (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)