Talk:Werewolf

Adding new section please

There should be a section on the main page called "Removal of Werewolves" and it should be expanded.

Fire and Silver are only Sonic.

Currently there are two paragraphs in the "Becoming a Werewolf" section that actually would be more appropriately placed here (i.e. the reference to wolvesbane). I advize seperating the content of "Becoming a Werewolf" and "Removing a Werewolf"

Also, i tried to add to the wiki (but i am unauthorized) with a fact from an old folklore book about removing a werewolf: If a werewolf is at your doorstep, when the home owner throws their house key at the werewolf, it will be compelled to leave.

I understand that this is a popular subject and the site must be protected from people randomly adding their two cents, but I have more information such as this that I think the article could benefit from.

Ryceratops 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Ryan Sept 19, 2007

Diphenhydramine can make you a werewolf?

In the first paragraph of the "Becoming a werewolf" section, it is claimed that "Diphenhydramine, ingested in large quantities and with sustained mental effort, is another method." Given that Diphenhydramine is a synthetic antihistamine, sedative, and hypnotic, first discovered in the 1930's which has no natural analogs, this sentence seems misplaced in a paragraph about historical legends. As Diphenhydramine is also used as a contemporary recreational drug and has a following among adolescents, it's inclusion in this article seemed to be clear vandalism.

When I deleted the sentence as vandalism on Sept 30, it was reinstated the following day by clpo13.

Was I hasty in labeling it vandalism? Should this kind of drug-related non-sequitur just be flagged as needing a citation? When I look at Wikipedia:Vandalism, the distinction seems to be about whether it is a good-faith edit or not? My call was that is was a bad-faith edit. Was I wrong?

Grhabyt 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Heck, if it makes you a werewolf I'm buying shares in the company....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have been the hasty one. The sentence had been there a long time, so I assumed it had some kind of credibility. When Grhabyt removed it, I thought his was a NPOV edit, considering s/he was a new user (new users tend to vandalize articles under the guise of fixing vandalism). However, I should have looked further into the issue to see who originally added the sentence and to see if it had any evidence whatsoever. It probably doesn't, so I think it can be safely removed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Grhabyt. --clpo13_(talk) 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs?

Maybe therapod dinosaurs were werewolves, they look somewhat like mammals and they walk on two legs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

um hello theropod dinosaurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.110.142 (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Warewolf

Since it's a common mistake to spell "werewolf" as "warewolf", I think it would be a good idea to redirect Warewolf to this page. (I know that would have helped me). Dengarde ► Complaints 02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Righto, done cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but warewolf and werewolf are completely different! The werewolf is a savage beast who wants to rip you apart. The warewolf? Well, he just has top quality goods at the lowest prices... ;) Spawn Man (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Right - there is an FA of Kitsune which would be a good model for this one. It is a bit rough but I'll be somoothing it out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

I've proposed renaming Category:Werewolves in fiction as well as its subcategories. (See banner above). Discussion is here. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, can't get to the discussion. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Above link to discussion should work now. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion was closed as Keep. There may be a better template for this, but I used the standard results template above. -- Kesh 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• The website - Loup-garou.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.65.165.93 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comprised Of

"were comprised of" in the "Other Uses of the Term" is incorrect English grammar. The correct phrase is "and comprised members...." The whole comprises the parts, while the parts are comprised by the whole. Please change this grammatical mistake as the article is blocked and I cannot do so myself.

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)

Vulnerabilities

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)

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — 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)

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. — 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 you changes, this second time the name 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. I know you mean well, but it's not the same thing. 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?

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. Synergy 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
6. 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)

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)

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)