Talk:Monster

Working Classic

§ "Classic Monsters" needs to be renamed or get different content. For classic should be something like monsters from mythology folk legend, etc. not the Walmartian concept of Classics. Or just remove it entirely doesn't fit rest of article which appears like it was written by editors that could appreciate the distinction. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this was addressed, ty. Lycurgus (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Birth Defects

I really don't understand why almost the entirety of § "Definitions" is just spent describing birth defects, this feels somewhat off-topic. Additionally, much of the language it uses is dehumanizing towards people with these conditions, outright calling them literal monsters. I understand that the article is "about legendary creatures and physical deformity", but it doesn't seem like that's what the article simply titled "Monster" should be about. Rather, I feel a page about the connection between the cultural ideas of monsters and physical deformities, separate from, but linked to/summarized in this article would be more appropriate. – 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Extremely Dehumanizing

I understand that birth defects/those with disabilities are, historically and culturally, tied pretty closely with the concept of monsters, but the fact that the majority of the article is discussing real-world birth defects and referring to them as "monstrosities", as if that were an actual medical descriptor (it's not) feels both unnecessary and offensive. The fact that most of the article is discussing disabilities and teratology (which is a completely separate topic and has its own page) feels odd, especially since the word "monster" is also used to denote actions, not just appearances (i.e., referring to a serial killer as a "monster"). I feel like a few parts of this article should absolutely be edited/rewritten, preferably by someone with maybe some more sensitivity towards actual people with disabilities/birth defects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortoiseguy1 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNCENSORED.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Because saying that the article for "monster", which is generally always used to talk about either weird/spooky creatures or people who've done horrible things, shouldn't be mostly about birth defects, is censorship now? --Jessietail (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking for "censorship". I'm saying that referring to disabled people explicitly as "monsters" (rather than more accurately phrasing it as "once thought of as monsters", for example) is archaic, medically inaccurate, and unnecessarily cruel. I'm also saying that it's odd that an article about monsters as a very general topic is almost entirely dedicated to the subject of teratology, which, as I said, has its own article on here. The information on, say, mythological monsters, or monsters as a cultural and societal concept, is oddly minimal, with what information there is here seeming to still come from a strangely teratological slant (as well as bizarrely archaic, referring to those born with deformities as "human monsters" as if that were an actual technical term, which it definitely isn't). My saying it's offensive isn't me saying that it harms my delicate senses, but rather that the information presented in this article is lacking, and that much of it is phrased oddly, using terminology that the medical community hasn't used in a very long time (I don't know what doctors or teratologists the writer was talking to, but "monster" hasn't been an accurate or appropriate term to refer to someone born with a deformity in hundreds of years).Tortoiseguy1 (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That whole section seems to have entirely been added by some user Monozigote back in 2013 and somehow came to dominate the page with no one questioning it as far as I can see --Jessietail (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird, I remember reading this article for research for an essay in high school back in 2014, and I have no memory of this article being like this.Tortoiseguy1 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, fixed. It should lure the asshole who made the ableist section in for an edit war.Falconfly (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Real-life inspiration

Should it be mentioned that real animals have historically been considered monsters? In almost all cases, they are carnivorous megafauna who consider humans to be a potential food source, such as bears, crocodiles, and tigers. I have read some sources which attribute these to the origins of the cultural and mythological variety. --King Starscream (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattis1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Monsters and Entities

Monster and entities have a mysterious nature and leave marks on things most of the time. Can people please hunt and research on them? 121.98.229.122 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)