Talk:Werewolf/Archive 3

Beast of Gevaudaun
I had to skim this page but if I'm not mistaken you never mentioned the accounts of La Bete, A.K.A. the beast of Gevaudaun. La bete was said to be a large, beastly, wolf. She reigned over the mountains of france for three years and killed many people. There is one true story of three women on their way to mass. They were approached by a man who offered to take them through the woods. In the nick of time dragoons arrived and warned the women not to go through the woods because La Bete had just been seen there. When the dragoons left the strange and dark man insisted that they go through the woods but the women still refused. When the man reached out and touched a woman on the hand the ladies it was covered in fur. Almost the exact same thing happened where two other women were on their way to mass and were approached by the same shadowy man. The wind was fierce and when his shirt blew open, it revealed, to the women's horror a long body covered with fur. to find out more about this go on google.com and type in to the search bar 'beast of Gevaudaun' 4theloveofwolves (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)4theloveofwolves4theloveofwolves (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)January 26, 2008, 1:10
 * Or, you could find the proper citations and add it yourself! That's the nice part about Wikipedia, after all. :) -- Kesh (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please clarify this?
''[...]along with another form of this being "licked" by a werewolf to turn one's self (in this case the person is continuously a werewolf but has total control over the form, and has no blood lust, but gains increased strength and agility). Also it is hereditary, meaning you can be born a werewolf in women they do not bring their change into view until after they have mated with a male werewolf, but the boys are born into it.''

I have totally no idea what this means. Looks like someone added this in less-than-basic english and omitted a large portion of full stops and commas. Especially: [...]meaning you can be born a werewolf in women they do not bring their change into view[...]

I can be born as a werewolf inside of a woman? Do you not usually leave the woman's body when you're born? And who is "they", just so I know who does not bring his or her change into view? Seriously, this needs some fixing!

I would do it myself, but I'm afraid, since I don't quite get what this section wants to tell me, I'd make things worse... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.51.170 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed that section. I don't know why this article is the target for such weird claims and vandalism. -- Kesh (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the convoluted sentence is supposed to mean that, while men are born as werewolves, women would need to "mate" with one in order to become full-fledged (full-furred?) werewolves. I had never heard anything like that before, and, as it was not sourced, probably it was deleted for the best Leirus (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)LeirusLeirus (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's right; werewolves are either claw ins or born from wolf to wolf mating. In most cases cinverted; rarely ever naturally born. Even today it would be rare for a werewolf to be born naturally but it is happening more often in todays world. wolf of mystery (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Either the Wolves have an occasional latent humanoid sub (pseudogene) or a Witch or Starving Primitive Human Female engaged in some act. You could, I might also out of curiosity but have moral doubts, petition for the in vitro fertilization of a human ovum with the sperm of a wolf on condition of the timely discontinuation of the process before reaching sentient maturation, otherwise if it feels Human it could even mean having to create a Human Subspecies which might be inferior but might overwhelm normal man, it could create a bad gene pool as such things need not be unique and are risky as it would mean the de-humanization of our species.

Vulnerabilities I have no means to reach the above article so I here contribute to the following in answer to the above, it is possible The article describes the werewolf as being vulnerable to silver. While this is a common element of related folklore, there is nowhere any reference as to why silver qualifies as a greater threat to a werewolf than any other material a weapon could be made of. I mean, how does the werewolf escape death from a normal type of weapon? Does he regenerate? Do the bullets and blades simply bounce off his hide? Will they pass through him like through a ghost? Could someone familiar with the topic please add an explanation to the "Characteristics" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.51.170 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's folklore should give you a slight clue as to why there's little in the way of explanation for the whole silver bullet thing. You may as well ask why vampires don't like garlic. Or why everyone who writes about vampires or werewolves seems to get the details a bit different. I can't imagine why this would be - it's almost like it's impossible to find a member of the undead to have a chat to. Janeinhouse (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that was not what I meant - even if fairy tales don't offer scientific explanations, what I was looking for was a description of a situation where a werewolf is attacked with a normal weapon. What does happen in such cases in fiction? No detailed explanation HOW it happens, just WHAT happens. For example, in many horror movies, zombies will get up again and again after having been gunned down if they are not shot in the head (or the head is removed). While we do not learn as to WHY killing them in a normal way is not sufficient (even the explanation given by some works still relies on the presumption that within its constructed world, the very existence of zombies as such can be explained as a physical reality), we still learn WHAT happens - half a minute later, our dim-witted, smelly friend, now maybe minus some limbs or internal organs, gets up again and carries on his stuporous hunt for our tasty flesh... 77.20.57.156 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The belief that werewolves were especially vulnerable to silver came about after the destruction of the Beast of Gevaudaun. That creature had been shot and killed with a very primative firearm. The person who fired that firearm used silver bullets because silver was and still is a superior material to make bullets from, and he needed every advantage he could get. Werewolves have an aversion to wolfsbane because back in the old days, hunters would use wolfsbane to poison wolves with laced pieces of meat. Coelacanth1938 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"silver was and still is a superior material to make bullets from" - incorrect. Silver is not a superior material for bullets. In all of the firearms literature and reference material I've read over the past 27 years I have never seen silver put forth as a a superior material for making bullets or even much of a good one. Silver is too light (10.49  g·cm−3) and too hard (Mohs 2.5) to be a good bullet, lead is softer (Mohs 1.5) and heavier (11.34  g·cm−3) that is why it is used to make bullets. Lead hits with greater energy than a lighter weight material, penetrates further, and is soft enough to mushroom and expand some even if it is a simple round ball, silver when fired into a target doesn't penetrate very deep and does not mushroom as well as lead will.

Also if you read the Wikipedia article on Beast of Gévaudan you will note: "The killing of the creature that eventually marked the end of the attacks is credited to a local hunter, Jean Chastel, at the Sogne d'Auvers on 19 June 1767. Later novelists (Chevalley, 1936) introduced the idea that Chastel shot it with a silver bullet of his own manufacture." I suspect they borrowed this idea from folktales of silver being effective against lycanthropes.

"The Book of Werewolves" 1865 By Sabine Baring-Gould tells of a man using silver bullets (buttons) to defeat witches who had changed into dogs. Montague Summers in "Werewolf" 1933 mentions folk stories of silver bullets being used against witches and sorcerers who changed their shape into animals. "The Werewolf of Paris" 1933 by Guy Endore the werewolf is wounded by a silver bullet (A silver crucifix which had been blessed by the archbishop melted into a bullet). In each of these cases the people had attempted to use normal bullets but to no effect.

Silver in alchemy is associated with the moon and lunar influences, werewolves in legend are affected by the moon so there is one possible link. Silver like iron has been considered a magical metal since the time of the Egyptians. Many cultures have the custom of placing silver coins on the eyes of the dead. Apollo's bow was made of silver Artemis' arrows were of silver. So the use of silver for bullets to kill werewolves, or any lycanthrope for that matter may simply be people using what they already considered to be a magical metal to deal with a magical creature. Fordag (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There's mention of the use of a silver coin placed in a gun to kill a witch (or related) in Le Dictionnaire Infernal by Collin de Plancy (1825-26 edition). Silver was considered impossible to bewitch. In the Bête du Gévaudan affair, Jean Chastel melted 3 bullet made from metal (silver) from medals of the Holy Virgin. (Félix Buffière, Ce tant rude Gévaudan [détail des éditions], tome II, p. 1169 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.24.54 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?--or is there a Clarification?
This: "The medieval chronicler Gervase of Tilbury associated the transformation with the appearance of the full moon; however, there is evidence that the association existed among the Ancient Greeks, appearing in the writings of Petronius. This concept was rarely associated with the werewolf until the idea was picked up by fiction writers."

So...Which is it? Was the association of the werewolf transformation with the appearance of the full moon rarely associated with the werewolf until picked up by fiction writers, or does it go all the way back to ancient Greece?? or is this trying to say something else?? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.236.53 (talk • contribs) 12:48, April 7, 2008


 * It sounds like the writer was trying to say that the association existed that far back, but was not frequently cited until fiction writers used it as a plot device. Most medieval stories of werewolves involved witchcraft or pacts with the devil, not necessarily tied to the moon at all. -- Kesh (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a rare old source to the idea, but it is the exception, not any indication of how werewolves were thought to work. The vast majority of all others up until modern times did not include it. That's what's meant. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Slovenes in Poland
"Common amongst the Kashubs, and the Serbs and Slovenes of what is now northern Poland" What does this refer to? Slovenes have never lived in northern Poland. Could someone disambiguate this link please? --Eleassar my talk 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Serbs and Slovenes are not found in Poland. They are found in the former Yugoslavia (Slovenia and Serbia). Kashubs are generally from Poland. Swordmaster13 (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess the peoples mentioned here probably are Sorbs and Slovincians. Cyon (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Serbs and Slovenes did live near Poland. During the Roman Empire they traveled through the valley between Carpathians and Alps into the Balkans. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
Recent edits have added the information that "Wer" is Germanic for "man", and I originally reverted this with the edit summary "rv unsourced assertion". After reviewing the article I find that I was mistaken, in that the information is cited in the Etymology section. However, the etymology of the term is complex enough that I still don't think it should be handled in such a fragmentary way in the first sentence. Typically only pronunciation guides are provided in the lede and origins are left for the etymology section. Doc  Tropics  03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Werewolves and Vampires?
Has anyone besides me noticed this? THat Werewolves and Vampires do not get along...At all. I recently just watched "Van Helsing" and that's when I noticed the pattern I've been seeing. Here are a few examples:

-Underwold Evolution:

The Werewolf and Vampire clans were at war, or something like that, correct? If not then they hated each other.

-Van Helsing:

Dracula only made a cure for the Werewolves because that was the only creature that could kill him. And earlier in the movie we see this picture of a Werewolf and Vampire fighting.

-Kaibutsu Oujo: MONSTER PRINCESS:

Riza/Liza [Werewolf Half Breed] and Reiri [Vampiress] do not like each other in any way. They often fight over pointless things, and at times it can get physical. Later on, however, they tolerate each other, but they still do not like each other. And, one of them mentioned something about their clans not getting along as well. [This is a horror/comedy. btw]

So, if anyone thinks this is worth mentioning, that'd be pretty cool. I would actually like to know more about it, but I just happened to notice this was all. 70.251.94.30 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a very recent thing to do "vampires vs. werewolves." We'd need some kind of source to mention it in the article. -- Kesh (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I do not recall anything about this subject from before White Wolf's (original) World of Darkness. But I don't claim to know everything... ;-) 77.227.38.85 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes; even today warewolve and vampires can never agree on anything; so ya hes right. We hate each other yes but we save it for the night; for others safety. wolf of mystery (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC) i disagree vampires and werewolfs get along well in afew movies i've seen

Werewolves in Cinema
I think the Werewolves in Fiction section should be divided into two, with the second being devoted to the depiction of werewolves in cinema. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no real need to do that in this article. That section links to Werewolf fiction, where a full treatment on werewolves in film is available. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll see how it goes with proper structure and referencing. Agree that the main place is a fictional article, well, a real article with fictional material :) . Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

chicken nugget noodle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.138.251 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cites on this article are majorly problematic
There are some *36* references to the same book -- this Werewolf Delusion by Woodward. The next closest reference in terms of number of cites is a couple that have been cited twice. This shows an amazingly unbalance, an extreme reliance on a single title... and one I might add that's certainly not in any way considered the standard reference (or even a well known one) on the topic. This article might as well be renamed "What Woodward thinks about Werewolves" at this point. When exactly did this article get changed to concentrate so extremely on the views of a single author? It didn't used to. I can think of plenty of better books to use as sources, and most of them are on the recommended reading section already.

Also, Montague Summers is used in one place to support a claim. Summers is an extremely unreliable source. He believed werewolves (and vampires and witches) were real as some sort of odd extreme religious view of demons invading the world, and often went through misinterpreting other people's religions (current or past) to try to find evidence for it, often lumping completely unrelated characters and figures together to try to make his point. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does need some more sourcing. I haven't been able to pick up any good references lately, but I'll see what I can find. In the meantime, if you've got any of those other books, feel free to cite them. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I find time I might go through and cite things in some of those 36 reference to Woodward to more well known and well respected sources that I have read. DreamGuy (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to find more info and source it, but I see nothing warranting the removal of any Woodward citations.

I can think of plenty of better books to use as sources, and most of them are on the recommended reading section already.

So you have read werewolf delusion? If not, then who are you to say it is not as reliable as other reccomended reading?Dark hyena (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not read it, but as someone who did a lot of extensive research into classic books on the topic, this book didn't even show up on the radar as one that should be read. And if you'd read my comments you'd see that I said SUMMERS was not reliable, and just that Woodward is way way WAY overused for a book that's not a standard reference title in the field and for which other books would be better (more representative on research on the topic, as in having references by other authors, etc.). Whoever added all these cites essentially is promoting Woodward over all other sources. DreamGuy (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing then? That Woodward references be removed, or that more information from other works be added? I'd happily support the latter.Dark hyena (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, okay, I am wondering what are good sources then. I have The Werewolf Book by Brad Steiger, and The Book of Werewolves by Sabine Baring-Gould (which I picked up for $2.50 about 25 years ago), and I have access to a university library. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... anything written by an objective author who uses actual historical references rather than making sensationalist assumptions (like cryptozoologists would). If you intend to add something to which the author of that information says something like "in my personal opinion", then specify that it is so. Dark hyena (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements and layout:
Okay, the layout as it currently stands:

1 Etymology 2 Origins of werewolves 3 Folk beliefs 3.1 Description and characteristics 3.1.1 Traits and habits 3.1.2 Becoming a werewolf 3.1.3 Vulnerabilities 3.1.4 Remedies 3.2 Ancient beliefs 3.3 European cultures 3.4 American cultures 3.5 In modern culture 4 Vampiric connections 4.1 Folkloric overlap 4.2 Scholastic comparisons 5 In fiction 6 See also 7 Footnotes 8 References 9 External links

So, the etymology section is about the term, origins is about the scientific and rationale for werewolves (this should probably be below modern culture as it is in vampire, but as it stands, it has a lot of folkloric content, so I thought I'd leave it up there for now...). Folk beliefs is about the myths, legends etc surrounding the werewolf and any of the history we can find. Descriptions and characteristics through to remedies is about the description and physical side of werewolves, and how you can become and prevent one etc. Ancient beliefs is about the very earliest mentions of werewolves (I have a book which says the legends stem from nordic origins - should that go in origins or ancient?). European through to american (possibly more cultures as time progresses) is about culture-specific legends and lore, while modern culture is about the current view on werewolves (not modern fiction...!). I'm not too sure about vampiric connections, but if it's good, then it'll probably stay there. Fiction is about the werewolf in cinema and literature. And thats about it. I'll go through, tag what sounds odd, remove that whence is crap, copy edit or merge anything else and we should have a nice slate to work from. I'll get on it straight away... Spawn Man (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Straight after lunch... or a nap... or both... ; ) Spawn Man (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Spawn Man, regarding some of your changes, this is the second time the Classical Literature section has been changed to "ancient beliefs". The section is not about "ancient beliefs" at all; it's about the appearence of werewolves in Classical Literature and mythology. The stories may or may not reflect "beliefs" but that's not what the section is about. Also regarding the Folk Beliefs section, I understand and sympathize with what you're trying to do but that title just doesn't work for the content of the section.  Maybe another one would work better, but it seems to me that werewolves are by the very nature of the beast, creatures of folklore, so putting "folk beliefs" as the title of a section is redundant and seems clumsy to me.  Josh (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and the beast of gevaudian (or whatever...) needs a part too - that was a major part in werewolf lore... I have a book on it, but where should it go? Spawn Man (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The beastS (there was more than one) of Gevaudan was not a werewolf. It attacked in broad daylight and when it was killed, it did not revert back to its human form. Dark hyena (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact you're talking about it as if it was anything more than a wolf is frightening...! In any case, yes the beast(s) was considered a werewolf in some circles or at least loosely related to it. Don't worry, I've got the cites for it, so I'll add later. Spawn Man (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole werewolf story was one cropped up by the superstitious peasants of the area, based on the fact that the creaure constantly outsmarted Duhamel and Deneval, and that it took repeated shots without dying. Illiterate peasants are hardly an authority. All the hunters and dragoons involved in its final downfall simply saw the animals as unusually large, reddish coloured wolves. Heck, a NECROPSY was performed on them.Dark hyena (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point being? It is still considered a werewolf aspect - heck if vampires are mentioned on this article, then I'm sure a large wolf-like creature often billed as a werewolf can be included, since I have the sources. Spawn Man (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to read about it before commenting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Spawn Man and I were beginning to work this one up to FAC, and I was looking at Lycanthrope, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. There is some general info on changing into other animals but that is better in a therianthopy or general shapeshifting article. How do others feel? I have suggested werewolf as the lage and lycanthrtopy and the redirect only because the former is plainer english and more widely known (?) and accessible? Thoughts? Note: Unmerged as User:Dreamguy has commented this has been left open for an insufficient length of time.

Support

 * 1) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (as per above)
 * 2) No brainer - surprised I missed that one... Spawn Man (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the merger/restructuring suggested by Turlo Lomon below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as what we are arguing to below.
 * 5) Support. Just be careful because from the looks of it, there are additional sources with no inline citations. Chop it up, send a few pieces to Therianthropy and the rest to here. This should make werewolf a better article.  Syn  ergy 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I agree with what Syn & everybody else is saying. If Lycanthropy gets cleaned up a bit it would indeed be a "no brainer".  Josh (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Makes sense (particularly the complex move suggested below). A lot of the good information in lycanthropy is unsourced, though - can you move the interesting bits without sources, or find sources for most of it as part of the merge? I wonder if "lycanthropy" is perhaps the original and most accurate term, and werewolf should perhaps be the redirect even if it is the most common in current usage? Avruch  T 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the sources are there - just not inline citations. The bottom of the articles have several books I know cover it in detail. I may have a few of them and after my current FA push that I am working on, I would love to assist in cleaning this set of articles up. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with conditions&mdash;A merge would be logical, and I too favor Turlo Lomon's suggestion below.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  "Lycanthrope", literally translated, means "wolf-man".  That Dungeons & Dragons later generalized the term to refer to other sorts of shape-changing within its ficitonal universe is not really relevant.  In common parlance, if you hear the term outside of a D&D manual, it is referring to a werewolf.  A footnote or parenthetical will dispose of the non-standard D&D usage. Nandesuka (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

===Oppose=== Strong oppose - It is interesting that this was brought up to the RPG community, but both articles are about the real world references, not the game ones. Although there is some overlap in the articles, take a closer look at lycanthrope. The concerns brought up on the gaming page for RP reasons are the very issues already present on the lycanthrope using real world references. Although I am a huge supporter of RPG and D&D, these articles fall under the category of mythology, not RPGs (and the wikiprojects on the talk pages reflect this). They cover different topics. A werewolf is a lycanthrope, but a lycanthrope is not necessarily a werewolf. As such, I strongly feel they should remain seperated. The lycanthrope could easily be expanded by covering the other varients in additional detail. Turlo Lomon (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Compromise Suggested - lycanthrope can't simply be merged into Werewolf. There is too many non-werewolfy info bits there. However, Therianthropy would fill the rest. If the Lycanthrophy article was broken up, with the relevant sections moved to werewolf and the others to therianthrophy, then finally a redirect from Lycanthrophy to werewolf, I would be happy with the end result. Turlo Lomon (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree absolutely. that was what I had in mind so...good. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, that's what Cas mentioned in the first paragraph of this thread... :P Spawn Man (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah, it is. I got caught up in the RPG side of the discussion and didn't check all the previous posts. Turlo Lomon (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, all good. Musing on closing this as consensus or leaving it open for another 24 hours or so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I am the only opinion that matters, but I consider it consensusfied. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Lycanthropy results in more forms than wolves. I don't see any sense in limiting the article to one subset of the topic. Celarnor Talk to me 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Celarnor, the only place where this is so that I know of is in RPGs, specifically D&D. Apart from this one reference, I can't think of anywhere else. If you can tell me or cite where this is true elsewhere I would be glad to hear it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Lycanthropy is a general discussion of the concept of humans becoming other animals. Werewolf is about a specific European legendary (and modern pop culture) creature. Redddogg (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redddog, the lycanthropy article as it stands now has a lot of general were-animal info (for lack of a better word), which may be better off in therianthropy or shapeshifting. Outside of D&D, I have only ever heard of lycanthropy to apply to werewolves. Can you point me in hte direction of a reference for a more general use? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Tread carefully here. Lycanthropy in Dungeons & Dragons is any form of shapechanging from human to animal form as a curse. You might want to post a notice at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons about this merge request. LA (T) @ 05:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm..I do recall that now, as the category lycanthropy was used for all those pesky CE weretigers, LE wererats, N wereboars, CG werebears as well as the CE werewolves.....I guess we can place a semantic note in it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is just a small selection of the werecreatures of Dungeons & Dragons. Don't forget the weresharks, werespiders, etc. There is even an unofficial weresheep wandering around. Just know that you won't get this done quickly if there are enough gamers who forget that lycan also means wolf. LA (T) @ 06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ha, I should know, I got a weresnake published in the Fiend Factory section of White Dwarf 30 way back in 1981 (when WD covered D&D...)..hehehe. (shameless self-plug)...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was also the MrsPaulacanthrope (were-fishstick) in an April fools issue of Dragon. However, these articles are based on the real world references, not the in game references. I don't feel that the RPG community should apply game mechanics from D&D to the discussion. However, there is already enough evidence (IMO) that they should remain seperate. Turlo Lomon (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh looking back, Gygax et al. have alot to answer for for taking a word which meant wolf-man and generalizing it like this. This is what I mean about the word outside D&D meaning werewolf. All the material on non-wolf shapeshifters should be in another article, either a more generic shapeshifter or therianthropy article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He wasn't the only one to make that mistake. I have several mythology books that do the same. However, I see your point. Let me peruse a few articles and then I will make a suggestion that will be amiable to all of us. Turlo Lomon (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gygax and co are guilty a lot worse stuff. If you take something and double it and double it again how much do you get? No, you don't get 4 times as much. Under the standard 3.0 or 3.5 rules you get three times as much since "doubling" means adding the starting value to your total. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Josh, you've completely lost me. I never read much of 3.0 or 3.5 (or now 4th edition for that matter), or are you referring to something in 1st or 2nd ed? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the 3.0/3.5 rules doubling doesn't mean what it means to any sane person. Let's say for example that I have something that is supposed to do x damage and I have a spell that doubles damage and a feat that doubles damage. Now, in the real world, if I double x I get 2x. Then if I double it again I get 4x. But in Gygax world, doubling x gives 2x but doubling that gets 3x. I don't know if this applies to 4.0 since I've only skimmed the 4.0 rules so far. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (groan) - ok got it; back on topic, I am also looking for a reference for the generalisation of the term in RPGs..and my 1st ed stuff is buried deep in my garage under boxes and boxes of crap...and do you have an opinion on the merge? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't made up my mind yet hence the off-topic remarks. I'm looking for sources on the same matter actually but was trying to find secondary stuff. Use of actual D&D material in this context might constitute OR. Not sure in general how relevant it is to the merge issue. We may want to consider a merge with Wolfwere also. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaah the wol(f)were, which started as a one-liner in MM1 and grew into a monster. Surprised that one survived the AfD steamroller, question is, was wolwere ever a term outside D&D? Or was Jackalwere for that matter? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, my recollection is that Wolfwere was a full entry in MM1. Self-correction... Jackalwere was in MM1, but Wolfwere was only mentioned there and then expanded in MM2. The concept of animals, particularly predators, taking human form to lure in victims has a long history, but the terms 'Wolfwere' and 'Jackalwere' are pure D&D. Also, Gygax can't really be blamed for adding of multipliers since that was introduced long after he was ousted from the world of D&D. It's also a perfectly logical progression which I used in games myself long before AD&D started doing so... a number can be 'doubled' either by multiplying by two OR adding one-hundred percent. I've generally used both methods as the logic of the situation directed; There is no real reason that '2x damage' from fire would enhance '2x damage' from lightning... so that'd be 100% base + 100% fire + 100% lightning = 300%/3x. Whereas a sword getting 2x damage from increased sharpness and 2x damage from increased force would logically see those effects complement each other for 1 X 2 X 2 = 4x/400%. As to references for misuse of 'lycanthrope'... how about this one? --CBD 12:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Results of merge
I have gone through the old lycanthropy article - some of which read like OR, a segment is now in therianthropy, which could itself be merged with shapeshifting I would think! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now to rationalise - here are some orphaned sources to review:

Unmerged for now
I think people were way too quck on the trigger here to merge articles that have been separate for years with very little discussion. The Lycanthropy article had no discussion at all, and was the main one affected. All there was there was a tag that was only up for about a day and a half. Tags are easy to miss, and that's not much time for anyone to see it.

On top of that, the discussion here, which also didn't last long at all, mentioned Lycanthrope, not Lycanthropy. The former redirects to the latter, but it isn't clear that people knew what was being discussed.

Clearly the way the info was thrown onto Therianthropy was pretty sloppy, as it still was referring people to a main article that never existed.

I think we need to wait for more input here, look at our options, and not rush into things that can be messy to clean up afterwards. A "consensus" of people who happened to log on and catch it in a day and a half doesn't stand for much in the grand scheme of things. We could have a new consensus every week if that's all it took. DreamGuy (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Dreamguy, the stage is yours - please detail above why they shouldn't be merged and how they aren't synonymous. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... *Gets walking stick and tugs off stage* ; ) They're completely synonymous other than the fact that Lycanthropy is the technical term. However, that said, it's still not enough to fill an entire, unique article - it can all be said in the werewolf article. Stop being so darn collaborative Cas (jk) the tribe (consensus) has spoken and it's time to implement the changes. Stop pandering, be BOLD and finish merging. There's no reasonable reason for not merging. The article history is there, so things can be reversed. Sorry, just rearing to go, and the same thing happened on vampire where semantics stopped progress... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on Spawny, give it a few more days, just get stuck into improving werewolf and we can sort out this with proper consensus (well, time really). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See also section:
I suggest that we try and reduce that see also at the end of the article by working the links into the text - they just look ugly... Also, I've fiddled with the sections and I think that they look good now - I'll change them again if we get any info from other parts of world lore. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Worked on lead a bit. It needs a lot of expanding and work. Some parts were over-specific but others were very broad. I'd still use vampire as a model. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the range of related articles would a Therianthropy or Werewolf template be of use? --Nate1481 09:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree about working all of seealso section into it. Template idea is interesting, have to think what would be in it (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Largely the 'See also' section... with a few other bits that are in the article, the main reasonging is that it would be easier to group things and smaller, it could then be used on the other relevant articles. --Nate1481 10:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was musing on prosifying or removing them all. I have not used many templates really, we never thought of having one on vampire...hmmm.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) the fictional ones certainly don't mention a template, it is a real hotchpotch. I like the idea of a template being some sort of cohesive group of subjects.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The main ones I've used and worked on were Martial arts and Grappling but there are other styles having jsut one line in, I can do a 1st draft and then decide if it's useful, or what needs editing. --Nate1481 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Knocked up a quick 0th draft User:Nate1481/werewolf --Nate1481 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think any number of things could go in it, and I need some time to work on the article to figure out which topics may warrant a link in a template box. One of the seealsos Werewolf priest I am pretty sure is a hoax or synthesis. Tell you want, leave the link there to your userpage and we can add and subtract as we go as it could change radically. Does lookk promising - need to sleep now Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit away, it can be moved to the template space when its nearer done. --Nate1481 09:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

to get more intereset: --Nate1481 11:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

American Cultures
When the European colonization of the Americas occurred, the pioneers brought their own werewolf folklore with them and were later influenced by the lore of their neighbouring colonies and those of the Natives. Belief in the loup-garou present in Canada, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and upstate New York, originates from French folklore influenced by Native American stories on the Wendigo. In Mexico, there is a belief in a creature called the nahual, which traditionally limits itself to stealing cheese and raping women rather than murder.

Nahual is older than colonization of the spanish, and Mexico (Mexicas or Aztecs) don't know cheese until the colonization.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual[[Media:http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual]]

--148.245.28.125 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Thewolfmanposter.jpg
The image File:Thewolfmanposter.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (sigh) yep. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

cognates vs derivatives
I have removed "Spanish viril and varon" from 'etymology'. These are derivatives from Latin 'vir' not cognates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Weber (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thought here: Werewolf trials aren't mentioned here. I've heard the were forced to swallow hot irons until they confessed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.210.65 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Albanian word for "wolf."
I noticed that in this article the Albanian word for "wolf," was misspelled. The right spelling of the word would be "ujk," rather than "oik," and is very similar to the word given for indo-european: "wlkow," which of course I did not know, and cannot say whether it is correct or not. In fact, in Albanian the word "ujk," is also in some dialects used as "ulk," or "ulka," which readily shows the similarity with the Greek "lycos."

Also, in the etymology of the word "man," in "werewolf" from Old English "wer" (or were) and "wulf" in which "wer" is translated as "man" including the various other Germanic languages: in Albanian, the word is "burrë", or "burr" and as is known the letter "v" is easily transformed into "b." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.9.42 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That mess up about the "oik" looks more like a mistype than anything else. Maybe its as simple as just changing the word. Solonolrek (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Spade"?
Spade in Spanish is "pala." "Espada," on the other hand, means sword. Or am I wrong? Please check.

(See the part about corpses being exorcised by a priest.) 121.96.118.103 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

o.O not smart
wiki is very wrong. a werewolf cannot become a vampire. and werwolves do have tales. and a familiar is not a messenger. they need to get their wiccan information right. and a werewolf doesnt have anything to do with god. or the devil. wikipedia is VERY WRONG and needs to ask some one who realy knows about this stuff. this is annoying o.O lei gli individui devono chiedere un licantropo reale che sono come —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.253.67 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Werewolves are fiction. And wiccans don't get a monopoly on mythology. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Nevertheless, it is a fact (at least as far as the stories go) a werewolf cannot become a vampire, werwolves do have tales and a familiar is not a messenger. Gingermint (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were actually familiar with the older legends instead of just modern fiction you would know that spellcasters who turned into wolves were at very severe risk of becoming vampires at death in some very well known legends. Please take the time to read and learn instead of trying to lecture others on things you don't know much about yourself. DreamGuy (talk)

I'm sure you mean they have TAILS, and yeah, werewolves are mythology, theres different details in every culture, and then every time they've been in a fantasy story the legend has been changed to suit the needs. Writing that SOME legends say one cannot both be a werewolf and a vampire is one thing, but saying it's not possible is kind of hard to do with mythologies. Lordloss210

the truth about werewolves
in my recent studies in the far side of romania,i discovered an acaint ruin that showed a series of paintings of a man being turned into a wolf,sent be god to defend us from evil.i believe that if this is proof that werewolves did exist and that they where our body guards,but us being the inferiour race we mearly saw them as a threat and grew scared of them, and as the paintings showed us that the wolves grew tired of us hunting them and defending us at the same time, as one wolf grew strong enough to escape from gods grasp and went to seek revenge,this wolf was called hollimey THE KILLER.we where to inferiour to understand there reason for being the way they where,and we destroyed i believe to be our only chance at surving the apocalypse.these painting will be on display at the ancaint history museum in new york u.s on the 21 july 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.253.79 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are hilarious. What the hell does "acaint" mean? I didnt realise courses in archeology accepted functionally illiterate people.Mariomassone (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that was supposed to be "ancient." Either way, This kind of personal speculation] isn't appropriate for the article. &mdash; [[User:HandThatFeeds| The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically in non science there is never any proof. There is always belief whatever popular or common it can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC) We aren't so much cursed as annoyed by the lack of understanding on everybody elses part but yes; 210.56.253.79 is correct to a degree it can be created but that only happened once or twice. We are mostly naturally born or coverted as a rule. We care more about balnce of power than anything else. There are secrets i don't know about the origon of werewolf stories i don't know that I would love to know. I would like to know when the first warewolf story came into existance; that would be nice to know. wolf of mystery (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

mistake in article
The sentence "The vilkacis and skin-walkers probably have a common origin in Proto-Indo-European society, where a class of young unwed warriors were apparently associated with wolves.", is incorrect. The term skin-walkers is almost always used to refer to shape-shifters in Native American mythology. Native American and Proto-Indo-European society developed in entirely different hemispheres. Therefore there is little, if any, relation between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.162.219 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Transforming
I think I already know the answer to this question, but I just need someone to verify--werewolves can only transform into their werewolf-form when there's a full moon, right? I was a little confused because of the recent New Moon film, where two of the werewolves transform at will. Thanks. Ribeka&amp;Presario (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * believe it or not, werewolves are fictional. so are vampires. you can make them do whatever you want them to do -^sarcasm^- so really, there is no answer, they arent real, so humans dont transform into wolves under a full moon or just by getting mad. in the book new moon jacob does say that the whole full moon thing is just a thing created by hollywood, but you cant go by that, cuz JACOB is created by hollywood!! lol!! so, this paragraph in a nutshell, werewolves arent real, so there is no answer to that question. *dream on*dance on* 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Though a bit hard to read, Taylor has a point. You can read about the legends in our article, but there's plenty of variations in fiction and legends to when and how werewolves transform. Some are wizards who must don an animal skin and perform a ritual to change; others are cursed and change at the full moon; and others can transform at will. It's up to the author what the limits are. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

many of the accounts are lies set up by crazy loons and churches and others are fact though some are true accounts it is impossible to tell which are real. We do get seen occasionaly but what once in a hundred years maybe; a true case would be rare. In america today people mistake american grey wolves for warewolves; so that kind of evidence would be rare. wolf of mystery (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You're not some luney tune claiming to be a werewuf, are ya? LOL. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmsFan

European cultures
I'm probably just nitpicking, but the last time I checked Mexico and Argentina have been neither European countries nor cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azraelatdawn (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not mentioned in the Europe section, but in the Americas section. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As of 87.245.87.118 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC) they are mentioned in the section European cultures...

They're still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.12.19 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Christan/Protestant beliefs
{I do not claim to any proof other than testimony which can be believed or not according to readers' will/trust/choice.}

Christian/protestant Bill Schnoebelen testify about claims, that werewolves are real {but not exactly all common beliefs about them}, and it is form of empowering demon possession. According to him there are some complicated rituals in order to be werewolf. {Rituals' main focus is leading to demon possession, although it could not be view as such by partaker.} According to his beliefs it can be resolved by using name of Jesus in form of christian exorcism. However in example used by him there is willingness to be realised from it which can be required as for every kind of exorcism, so it is not exactly assured as form of protection, but it can be helpful. [For if assuming God existence praying/asking/pleading to him can be helpful in general].

Link: http://prophecyclub.com/Radio/2010/TPC02_26_Vampires_and_Werewolves_DVD6.mp3 More can be found here: http://prophecyclub.com/streaming_audio.htm and in their shop. mp3 links are valid for about over 1 Year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, a random guy says werewolves are real. I don't see any reason to include this in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As wikipedia is neutral in view. It should present a lot of views.
 * I do not claim that in non science is any proof. They are always only beliefs.
 * And this is just one of many beliefs. It sounds a little bit more modern and scientific, because of some critical approach.
 * But protestants are not too few in number. So their view could be presented also as one to choose from.
 * Prophecy Club and similar groups are pretty popular.


 * History, reporting, believes are never to determine, or to be proofed.
 * They seem trust worth or not. But they are always private view/testimony of someone.
 * And the reader of wikipedia should have possibility to make their decision what they want to believe in.


 * To explain this process, that there is never final proof, I want to remind, that in Bible after criminal suits in court, when they are about to execute guilty and condemned one, Witnesses/Testifiers are to put their hand to it in order to show that the judge is not guilty of the execution and the blood of innocent one but the false Witnesses/Testifiers are. Therefore the Bible reasons that criminal processing is not perfect and is fallible, and depends of trustworthy of witness and his testimony. Similarly when Jesus claims his Mission, he does not tell about proofs but trustworthy or not of testifiers.


 * If you would read some magical books from old, they are a lot of magic spells and rituals to perform appearance change and so on. I as theist believe in a lot of gods, and spirit. But Almighty can be only one. {And my is choice to believe in one or not.} I do not believe as atheist that such things do not happen, and most of the peoples are in great error because of legends and things, that never were close to truth.


 * I now Christian/Protestant testimonies/claims could seem not credible.
 * But occultists will not confess to perform any of their rituals.
 * First of all they are often illegal {require some sacrifice even up to human sacrifice}.
 * 2nd they are in secret {occulto means hidden}, and are often bound by spells, vows, and in danger of their own life if revealed.


 * So, I do not claim that there is any proof, they are just testimonies and beliefs.
 * And wikipedia can and should present all views possible for readers own consideration.
 * Wikipedia itself should not take any option as final infallible truth.
 * Whatever popular it can be. For even 90% of global internet society can be in error.
 * As they were sometimes much of the world about some things. {flatness of earth and so on...}


 * More about this Bill Schnoebelen:
 * What is more he does not believe that Werewolves has longer life, or are immortal. But they-Werewolves can believe so, just as some people in some kind of New Age/Hinduist religions faith could believe to be god/goddess and can live long. However they do not seem to really live much long.
 * He does not claim to see one werewolve on his own. He gives testimonies of other witness.
 * And reason about their credibility. {which he considers credible enough.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, we don't include the views of every random person on the Internet. Unless you can show he's A) representative of Christians in general, or B) an expert in his field, I don't see why we should include his views in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not want to enforce anything.
 * Bill Schnoebelen has been talk on The Prophecy Club radio program, and its meetings which were filmed.
 * The Prophecy Club is radio program {and was also TV show}, who at his best was listen to up to 25 mln listeners.


 * I do not know current polls but I suppose it would be much much less.
 * However there are some additional people wordwide who listen now in the era of popular Internet, who didn't have access before.
 * But I think Prophecy Club has been heard by more listeners than some wikipedias' languages have and had Users/Speakers/Readers wordlwide and timewide.
 * It is pretty popular with Christians/Protestants believing in coming NWO, and opposing it.
 * What is more he was partaker of Biblical UFO conference.


 * Generally every Protestant preacher/lecturer is representative of some Protestant who likes what he tells and believe him. I will just put emphasis that Protestant are generally not obligated to any Pope.


 * He seems like expert to me, but I do not want to overuse that word. Cause as I have said, I do not want enforce anything, and any views on somebody else.


 * I also think, that statement of werewolves being form of demon possession is generally intact with the mindset of big part of Protestants {or at list of part of part} who generally believe that such things as demons exist and are pretty commonly believed {among such protestant groups} to be responsible for UFO visitations, Marian apparitions, origin of mythic heroes& polytheistic god and legends of them, hypnosis, New Age channeling and so on. Such protestants do not argue about their reality, and that they actually take/took place, and are indeed supernatural, but reason to trust in their message or originating source - spirit behind them, and faithfulness of accounts about them {that there are some mistaken addition and twist, not as in case of infallible [to them] Bible}


 * I hope that this answers your question.
 * I understand that you do not include every "random" man's view from the Internet.
 * Could his views be added just in form of link to separate biographical article if it was made one?
 * As I have mentioned I do not want to impose, or enforce any view on anybody, however, I feel that this view {within its kind} is accepted/believed enough {by reasonable number of people} to be some how at least mentioned/remarked/linked in see also etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, unless you can find some independent, reliable sources backing up your claims (that he is notable, that "a big part of Protestants" believe in this stuff), it's not going into the article. Frankly, in my experience, most Protestants understand that werewolves are not real, and demons are not literally walking the Earth. It's a very small minority that believes in real-life possessions, much less UFOs. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

The Tale of Igor's Campaign
I'm looking at my own copy of The Tale of Igor's Campaign (Moscow, "Artistic Literature" 1987) page 45, and it reads:
 * Всеславъ князь людемъ судяше,
 * княземъ грады рядяше,
 * а самъ въ ночь влъком рыскаше:
 * изъ Кыева дорискаше до куръ Тмутороканя,
 * великому Хръсови влъком путь прерыскаше.

Both occurrences of "влъком" - Ablative (instrumental case) of "влък" (wolf) - have the first meaning "like wolf" and only second meaning "in wolf form". Author of the poem routinely uses animal epithets as metaphors: "О Бояне, соловию стараго времени!" - "O Poet, nightingale of ancient time!", "И рече ему буй тур Всеволодъ" - "Spoketh to him luxuriant/brave bison Vsevolod" (bison in the sense Bos primigenius), "Яръ туре Всеволодъ!" - "O gleaming bison Vsevolod!". No one ever translated those as "werenightingale" or "werebison"! This kind of metaphor is common in Slavonic languages, say, Polish "patrzeć wilkiem" (to look of wolf) means to look with hostile look, call someone "chytry lis" - "crafty fox" means said someone is cunning. Thus the translation (and the spelling) found in Vseslav_of_Polotsk is correct (except the part "Idol [or, (accepting the reading of the text unaltered)—to the Lord]", which is from other part of poem). The third line of the quoted fragment means "himself like a wolf races:" meaning like a beast, without own hometown (after saying in previous line that Vseslav appointed towns to princes); the fifth line means "racing on path of/with great Khors like wolf" - Khors was Sun God, so Vseslav was riding fast enough to arrive before dawn.

Moreover, in the battle:
 * Коли Игoрь соколомъ полетъ
 * тода Влуръ влъком потече,

"As Igor falcon flies thus Vlur wolf rides" - yet no one ever accused Igor Svatoslavich to be a werefalcon or his friend Olvur to be a werewolf. Meaning is "falcon-flies" and "wolf-rides" - as fast as wolf.

The idea of werewolf in The Tale of Igor's Campaign is quite common place, but it requires reading only two lines, and reading literally, outside the context.

--89.75.126.91 (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) MSz

loup garou
I have known several who have lived the Louisiana are for years. They have told me that loup garou is strictly a cajun based word and not a French based word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogger90909 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The language it comes from is French though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They may have told you that, but they would be wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, many cajuns us the corrupted form Rougarou, obviously derived from the French/Canadian French Loup Garou.

Clarification in Intro Section
The second paragraph has the sentence "Though it is endowed with all the beastly implements like stout-jaws and offensive paws that a natural wolf is most likely to use during a conflict with its enemy or prey, it has been classically known to kill the others with a dagger or a knife though bite marks are also found on the (generally) dead victim" then includes a footnote saying that this is "firmly established in french (sic) folklore." I'm a bit new to the Wiki thing but that doesn't seem to be a valid source, having no citations and so forth. The entire sentence seems like it belongs elsewhere, if it belongs at all. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BHenry1969 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A werewolf can NOT change on purpose. That is a different type of creature called an Animagus. A werewolf only changes at a full moon without choice. Also, they are NOT in control when in the state of a werewolf. E.G: if your friend was turned into a werewolf, he would kill you without thought, he will not know the difference or be able to stop himself.
 * OMG, where do people come up with this stuff? Animagus? Does some very poor fiction somewhere make this claim? Probably some computer game. Legendary werewolves frequently can and did change on purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition
A werewolf, also known as a lycanthrope (from the Greek λυκάνθρωπος: λύκος, lukos, "wolf", and άνθρωπος, anthrōpos, man), is a mythological or folkloric human with the ability to shapeshift into a wolf or an anthropomorphic wolf-like creature, either purposely, by being bitten by another werewolf, or after being placed under a curse.

Who wrote that and what is the source for that statement? Elliot O'Donnel specifically stated that being a werewolf is not infectious and already Hertz wrote about the way of transforming via a wolf-pelt or a girdle. Being bitten is a trait of the fictional werwolf and not of the mythological or folkloric one.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between mythological/folkloric and fictional being ... ?
 * I guess Inugami-bargho is drawing a distinction between long-standing folklore and modern fiction (TV, films, horror novels etc.). Barnabypage (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible merger of several articles
I just stumbled upon Vǎrkolak article and then found Vârcolac and Vrykolakas linked from there. I'm not very well informed about the topic, but it seems like all three are really about Werewolves or someting similar. Could someone take a look if this is so and propose a merger if deemed fit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking at them one by one. Often people make little side articles (WP:FORK) that are very poor and then nobody knows they exist to bother holding them to the same standards as more popular articles. Just looked at Vǎrkolak and it was just a mess, with long, long paragraphs with n o sources provided and then the only sources provided where foreign websites of unknown reliability. Furthermore, with sources that poor, the whole thing is hugely non-notable. As it is indisputably a word linked to werewolves, I redirected it here without copying over any of the troublesome text. DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Same problem with Vârcolac, so same end result. DreamGuy (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Vrykolakas had a lot of the same bad sources, generally hand waving mentions of some sources that are reliable but only were for minor parts of the article. Since that one was more vampire like I redirected that to Vampire. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think merging some regional articles which are essentially variations with little that is entirely specific is prudent - so having a more robust werewolf article with some regional discussion and alternate names etc. I haven't looked in detail at the above, but yeah sources are often pretty meagre. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OH MY GOD YOU GUYS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS THEN? LOOK I DON'T CARE WHO DID IT BUT CAN WE FIX THIS PLEASE

(Sorry about the all-caps but this is a ridiculously frustrating situation for me and I want to make sure this gets noticed since the TALK page is so ginormous)

Look, the article on Folklore of Romania still links to Vârcolac, marking it at as a regional variant of the werewolf. There is nothing to clarify there that it is a direct translation, and I seem to recall that it's not (and really, "direct translation" of a broad concept like "werewolf" is impossible anyway; the term is almost as vague, varied and complex in what it can refer to, as "vampire" is). I recall a while back having looked up Romanian folklore and read about the Vârcolac on this very Wiki, where was defined as having originally referred to basically a lupine demon type creature of some sort, but having had the term co-opted to describe more modern werewolf concepts in recent years. Which means, in that case, no, it would not be a direct translation (of this impossible-to-directly-translate word). I was trying to check on my memory of this, and I clicked through and it redirected. Um, well, okay, if it can be considered a "type" of werewolf now, that makes sense, I thought...

...but you know what does not make sense? Redirecting the article, but then not even mentioning the word in the article it redirects to. Seriously! I just ran a Search on the page, and the very same Romanian folklore term that now redirects here...is not mentioned even once! NOT ONCE. What hell happened, people? You mention Hungarian and other regional variants, but not Romanian? You can tell there haven't been too many Romanians editing this lately, because they'd have thrown a fit at Hungary's mythology getting a reference when theirs is literally nothing more than a redirect, with not a single sentence to clarify why it's a redirect.

I haven't even edited on this site in years, and when I had it was usually simple fixes like punctuation, not something...really drastic like that. So I have no idea where to start on this, especially since the whole reason I was looking it up was because I wanted more information on topic I only had read small details about on year over a year ago. But please, please can somebody figure out what happened and make sure poor folks like me don't lose out access to what feels like a completely vanished bit of information? I'm not asking for the whole article back if it was a mess and a stub, I'm not asking for an un-merging, all I want is at least a damn sentence clarifying what that term actually refers to in Romanian folklore, since the damn Folklore in Romania article itself links here for it now. :( 71.47.209.145 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * PS - there are other articles which mention the word and then say that it can "symbolise a goblin" ( Pricolici ), so again, it doesn't sound like it's a direct translation. Are we so sure it should have been merged with THIS article and not with another article on specifically Romanian folklore? In fact, if it's a "similar, but" concept with Pricolici, would it not have been smarter to merge it with that one? :\ Would it be possible to change the redirect to there, maybe? 71.47.209.145 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes and References?
The Footnotes and References sections are decidedly non-standard and seem to make the included citations less than ideal. I believe they need to be cleaned up. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete the reference to Theobromine? (not verifiable)
The section on the vulnerabilities of werewolves contains a sentence stating that werewolves are not vulnerable to theobromine (a chemical in chocolate that can be poisonous to real-life canines). Where did this come from? I am not familiar with anything in mythology or popular culture that specifically references the question. The footnote that is given as a citation is just a link to a recipe for werewolf-shaped chocolate cookies. I suggest that the sentence in question be deleted. NikolaiSmith (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor sentence construction in lead
The phrase "werewolves are only vulnerable to silver bullets or pierced by silver weapons" needs to be rephrased. The words "pierced by" should be removed completely or changed. A change to "being pierced by" would work, as would changing to "silver bullets or other silver weapons". --Khajidha (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Visaria
Why does Visaria redirect to Werewolf without there being any mention of Visaria in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The same issue exists for the Romanian term Vârcolac. In that case, it used to have a stub article explaining, IIRC, that it used to refer to a wolf-demon of sorts but had been in recent years co-opted to translate the word "werewolf" too, such as in film titles like "American Wereowolf". Now, it's just a completely context-free redirect, and the article does not even mention the word.

Look up a little ways and you will see a discussion where apparently a bunch of people jumped on the MERGE bandwagon, with nobody stopping to consider that they weren't completely "mergeable", at least without clarification. The term "werewolf" is a broad term, referring to numerous different folklore and pop culture concepts that are lumped together on this article, and each regional or local cultural variant is going to have its quirks or its unique etymological origin for the term, so just blindly redirecting things like this and then leaving the article with no mention of the term, is incredibly inappropriate, not to mention annoying for anyone trying to find the original information that is now deleted from the Wiki. Somebody with better foklore knowledge and some good sources should fix this mess; I don't even know where to start :\ 71.47.209.145 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lycanthropy in Galicia
Galician tradition holds that the seventh son of a family can be either normal or "lobishome" (a werewolf). If normal, the child will have the image of a cross or the wheel of Saint Catherine inside his mouth while a werewolf will not. A person will become a werewolf by shedding his clothes and leaving his home at midnight each Friday. He will then visit seven villages, clothing himself in a skin at each one. He can be forced to return to his human form by making him bleed or by burning one the skins he wears. Becoming a werewolf can be prevented by having one of his brothers sponsor the child for his Baptism and Confirmation. If none of the werewolfs brothers is eligible to be a sponsor (he must be over 16 and have taken confirmation) then baptizing the child with the name of "Bieito" will also prevent the transformation.

With the cultural movement associated with the Age of Enlightenment lycanthropy became accepted as a real medical condition. Various causes of the condition were put forward such as, Syphilis, Rabies, Porphyria, Epilepsy and belladonna poisoning. By the middle of the 19th century psychiatric diagnoses of clinical Lycanthropy became the norm with psychopathological explanations for lycanthropy.

According to the census of 1860, the province of Ourense was predominantly a rural agricultural province. There were no psychiatric hospitals until the opening of the Conxo asylum in 1885 and the insane from Galicia were sent to a hospital in Valladolid. There were no psychiatric doctors at all in Galicia and the only doctors involved in the "werewolf of Allariz" case were the doctors of the town of Allariz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.248.224 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

About shapeshifters from what i have read on what most people say, i'd say get a real story before you start writing the lies all over the wall. shapeshifters do have two forms and can change between the two, but not during the daytime. during the night, the sun isn't shining which boosts these creatures ability to shapeshift. they can only change after the teenage years kick in, since this is when the body changes the most. it gets harder to do so as they get older, but they can still shapeshift. sorry about getting off topic, but i want to know the idiot who said that shapeshifters are like humans. they have similar mental qualities to humans granted, but they do not act the same way entirely. they take on the characteristics of their aimal form mainly mentaly. finally, they have heightened emotions and other senses like smell and hearing. want more info? talk to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johakaim (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

irish werewolves
The mention of St. Patrick (who wasnt irish) cursing a king was a direct change to old irish folklore by the catholic church ages ago! Same with the cursed family by Nadiana... early iriah folklore depict werewolves as protectors of the lost traveler, children, and injured. It was considered an honour in the irish culture until the church crushed the locals in the 19th century .. any irishman worth their salt knows the old stories and yet there is no mention here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.185 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the way an encyclopedia works. It doesn't matter what anyone—Irishman or not—"knows"; what matters is what can be attributed to a reliable source (see WP:RS). &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Causes Of Lycanthrope Transformation
Some versions of werewolves state that a man or woman can be turned into a werewolf by being bitten by a wolf under a full moon, while others say that only a werewolf can turn a human. Some versions say that wolf's bane can also turn a human into a werewolf. There are probably many other causes of a transformation, but this is all I know, and these are all from various sorces (i.e. Fictional Books). Theawesomemasterofawesomeness (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Trying to improve this article
This is a difficult case, in my experience the wide-ranging "folklore" topics are notoriously hard to get right. People pile up a lot of unordered tidbits over the years, some useful, some not, and it is highly non-trivial to massage that into an encyclopedia article. A comparable case was ghost (dare I look what state this is in today? still looks reasonably ok, enven if a bit bloated. Once the article has found an encyclopedic structure, it usually becomes much more stable).

The main problems I would observe in this case are: --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * lycanthropy is a cfork. Some people tried to make it into a cfork of therianthropy at the same time, adding to the confusion. So all the stuff at lycanthropy needs to be sifted and, if usable, re-distributed to either this page or to therianthropy.
 * WP:RS: the article as I found it was substantially based on Woodward (1979). This will not do at all. Not only is this "study" rather obsolete, it is also written by an occultist who believed werewoves are "real" (in a spiritist sense of being "projections" of the dead or something). This is an interesting view to be discussed under "modern reception but certainly not a source on which we want to base the encyclopedic article.
 * Article structure: the "werewolf" topic has basically three topical sub-divisions, two comparably easy, one very difficult
 * "origin" theories from comparative mythology, anthropology etc. These are speculative hypotheses connecting the topic to its prehistoric roots and to loosely related phenomene. The important thing is to stick to WP:DUE, just academic expert literature should be considered. Eccentric or fringe stuff, such as Man into Wolf should not be included, or only in the briefest of terms. Also includes "pre-werewolf" related phenomena like the ulfhednar of Norse/Germanic warrior cult, and the related Greek material from classical antiquity.
 * the "werewolf" proper in the folklore of Europe. This is the difficult bit because it has both a temporal and a spatial dimension (as with ghost). Here, a "history" and "modern folklore" part should probably be distinguished
 * The late medieval and early modern history of this, say 15th to 18th century. This is the period of the European "witch hunts" and directly related to it. It is also the period during which mainstream authors would seriously consider the "reality" of werewolves, or seriously try to convince their audience that they aren't real.
 * Regional folklore recorded in the modern period, say, during the later 18th to early 20th century. This should be divided by region. It is possible that the "Germanic" or "Western" tradition needs to be treated separately from the "Slavic" or "Eastern" one, i.e. there are two overlapping but possibly independent complexes, the werewolf on one hand and the vlkodlak on the other.
 * Werewolf fiction as it evolved in literatury, without the pretense (or only the mock pretense) to document actual folklore or occultism. In its early phase this fed back into the folklore itself though, as with the coinage of vurdolak, apparently a word invented by Pushkin which came to be handed around as genuine folklore. From the 20th century, werewolf fiction of course becomes much easier to isolate from folklore.
 * unrelated or barely related material: some editors will always succumb to the temptation, in an effort to "globalize" to add any barely related piece of tradition concerning wolves or shape-shifting from around the globe. This must be avoided as much as possible, as the topic itself is already impossibly difficult to cover, and random unrelated tidbits aren't going to help. The place to attempt this would seem to be the Shapeshifting, which is of course itself in desperate need of attention. Left to itself, this kind of article just turns into listcruft. Writing a coherent piece on "shapes-shifter belief around the world" is a difficult task, and hard work. Some other day perhaps.


 * I think that this image (see link at end of comment to prior version of article) should be reinserted (or added) into the article. All of the current images do not depict a werewolf outline and full form in the classical sense that everyone is familiar with and are distortions of a full, complete transformation. I really don't understand why-> Dbachmann changed it in April sometime. It doesn't make sense because the following image is clear and classical whereas the current ones are confusing and distorted, mid-transform even (there is nothing that shows it complete). Please reinsert/add the image to the current article found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werewolf&oldid=552787487     AlisWhitcombe (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is a joke. Uses phrases like 'The werewolf was sentenced to life in prison'. -.- IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally!!!
Finally! This is what I need to become a werewolf!:In Italy, France and Germany, it was said that a man or woman could turn into a werewolf if he or she, on a certain Wednesday or Friday, slept outside on a summer night with the full moon shining directly on his face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.127.185 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. WoooOOOoooo.

Poor Lost Child
I cant find the article about the werewolf girls in sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.214.161 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Werewolf section needs more info.
Can someone please write that the term werewolf comes from the actual use of deep association with demons and is magic. Turning into animals is real and is evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.164.198 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest a therapist, rather than vent your delusions on the Wiki talk pages. Good luck seeking help.

Edit request on 28 October 2013
On the page for 'Werewolf': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werewolf

There is an error in the opening paragraph:

A werewolf, also known as a lycanthrope (from the Greek λυκάνθρωπος: λύκος, lykos, "wolf", and ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos, "man"), is a mythological or folkloric human with the ability to shapeshift into a wolf or an therianthropic hybrid wolf-like creature, either purposely or after being placed under a curse or affliction (e.g. via a bite or scratch from another werewolf). Early sources for belief in lycanthropy are Petronius and Gervase of Tilbury.

"...the ability to shapeshift into a wolf or an therianthropic hybrid wolf-like creature..."

Should be:

"...the ability to shapeshift into a wolf or a therianthropic hybrid wolf-like creature..."

"a therianthropic" and not "an therianthropic".

Thank you

Jtewright (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Thank you for spotting the typo. Zidanie5 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect plural form of anime and manga
Japanese nouns are mass nouns so a "s" will not be added to make them plural. In the article, the Japanese noun "anime" is inappropriately pluralized as "animes". This is incorrect and should changed to "anime" instead. The same goes for the Japanese noun "manga". 24.149.119.20 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014
Please remove the sentence "werewolves are terrible at making cookies" from the article. There is little to no proof of this statement as far as I know.

TheCalzone (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Same for the follow-up "However, their cupcakes are simply to die for". Both sentences have been removed from the article, as they were rather obvious vandalism. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ovid and Lycaon
Just a quick note. On the Wikipedia page it connects Zeus with the story of Lycaon written by Ovid. Ovid is an ancient Roman writer. In which case this would be incorrect as the god who punishes Lycaon would not be the Greek 'Zeus' but the Roman 'Jupiter'. Just a word of warning before anyone puts it in an essay.

Weretiger link directs to wrong article
Near the end of the "Early Modern history" section (second to last paragraph), a reference to weretiger legends in India links to the Dungeons and Dragons "weretiger" monster. India is not even mentioned in this article.

It would be more appropriate for this to link to the Werecat article, section 1.3 "Asia", much of which is a discussion of actual weretiger legends in India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werecat#Asia

I would make the change myself, but there seems to be no edit button. Is this because the article is protected?

Hope I've been helpful,

Rhiawolf (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhiawolf (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Dating error for Pausanias
The geographer Pausanias wrote in the second century AD (or CE), not second century BC--a curious error since Wikipedia's Pausanias page manages to get the date right. Might the editors please fix this please? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.dulgarian (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Another add for Suggested Reading List
Konstantinos wrote "Werewolves: The Occult Truth", 2010-09-08 from Llewellyn Publications. 71.165.247.91 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Country of origin England?? An Englishman thought of that, no doubt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.73.175.252 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)