Jump to content

Talk:Werewolf/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

WikiProject Horror

Uh, werewolves feature in horror films. They also feature in mythology, books and TV shows. So why Horror?

E9 | TALK | ROCKER!! | ROCKAB00M | TALK | on a Talk Page

One word you. Dog Soldiers. Ok thats two. But its a movie about werewolves.24.144.137.244 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


James I

There is a problem here -- the reference to James I doesn't make any sense -- it basically says that James I was vigorously hunting witches, and regarded werewolves as being figments of the mind. That doesn't really seem to make a whole lot of sense. Does anyone know which is correct?


Older comments (and from people who felt the need to add to top)

validity.

why is all the research on were wolves and such riddled not with the tales that belong, but this crud about how to kill and how to hurt and how they hurt people? in truth they dont hurt anyone, you cant become a were wolf, your just born that way...

GabrielSimon

→How do you know?
E9 | TALK | ROCKER!! | ROCKAB00M | TALK | on a Talk Page


This article is on the subject of werewolf myths throughout all periods of time and cultures in which they appear, and as it happens most of those focus on those sorts of details. The particular conception of werewolves that you're describing above, as a natural spiritual condition, is a relatively recent development and not all that common even today. As such, it's not going to be focused on much in a general article like this. There is some mention of it - see specifically the last two paragraphs of the "History of the werewolf" and the section "Werewolves in modern fiction" in which there's mention of sympathetic portrayals - but I think you might find therianthropy to be a more appropriate article to look for detailed discussion of the "spiritual lycanthropy" subject. Bryan 02:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you are leaving out the non spiritual lycanthropes ( some of which are known to me) and the fact that wolves dont act like the portayed were wolves in those rather strange stories... GabrielSimon

Would "non-spiritual lycanthropes" be the mythological kind, or the clinical kind? Those are both already amply covered, I thought your original objection was to that very coverage of them. Bryan 22:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think both or none, as "clinical werewolves" have yet to exist, and the term "clinical" implies some evidence or science. Also, if you can find a lab which will turn a human being into a werewolf... Well, I'll have to make a list sometime about how much I bet you you can't.
E9 | TALK | ROCKER!! | ROCKAB00M | TALK | on a Talk Page


the ones who can physically change, and arent sick... or delusional. email me if you wish to fiurthur discuss this...

Gabrielsimon 22:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to provide evidence that such werewolves actually exist if you want to make statements about them in this article, rather than just making statements about peoples' beliefs about them. If you wish to discuss the contents of this article then this talk: page is the most approriate place for it IMO, email discussions aren't available to other editors for additional input and future reference. Bryan 23:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The thought occurs to me that if such werewolves did actually exist, they wouldn't want their friends to go blabbing about them on the internet, nor would they want to be "better represented" on a website whose pages get heavily mirrored. Am I the only one thinking this or what? --Corvun 10:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Very well said, but if I was all-powerful and could not be killed (scroll down) I wouldn't care if the whole wide world knew I existed. Some people (believe it or not) don't trust Wikipedia...
E9 | TALK | ROCKER!! | ROCKAB00M | TALK | on a Talk Page


Does anyone know if any work has attempted to address why the werewolf is so vicious? Is it because of the pain of transformation, or the hunger (burns a lot of calories, maybe?) or both? Or is that just too ridiculous a question for most people to tackle?  :-)

The werewolf is vicious for the same reason that a tiger, hawk, snake, or mythological beasts like dragons, are vicous: It's their nature.
E9 | TALK | ROCKER!! | ROCKAB00M | TALK | on a Talk Page


More relevant questions: if you become a werewolf by being bitten by a werewolf, what made the first one?

Why can werewolves only be killed with a silver bullet? How did people kill them in the centuries before guns? Silver arrows? And why silver?

Have any authors attempted to address these questions? Any folktales about them?

I've heard that some werewolves are created as the result of a curse, and not necessarily from being bitten by another werewolf.

Also, doesn't anything silver work? Silver daggers? -- corvus13

Why does everyone talk about silver? It's supposed to be because the moon is silver, but this is such a childish interpretation I think it must be modern. Anyway, we can assume that anything is the colour of God because God is everything, but if created us, wouldn't that mean we all died? I don't actually believe in him... but that's not the point. Something which happens to be a colour which your creator reflects on to you doesn't kill you. I think that's obvious. In the older folklore at any rate, and mythological encylopædias, werewolves are immortal and invincible.
E9 | TALK | ROCKER!! | ROCKAB00M | TALK | on a Talk Page



Other transformations

It is assumed legends of were creatures comes from the fear of witch craft. Stories of people turning themselves into ravinass monsters for the power. And its not just the full moon, it's the day of the full moon. Transformation was said to begin in the day and was long and painful. By night you were an ugly beast. And if the clouds covered up the moon for a moment you would not revert back to human form until the clouds past. I have no idea when that stupid statement began. Some interesting facts is that in African instead of werewolves they have hyena men and were bears originated in America and that the Werewolf is actually a European legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs)

My personal recommendation is to stay indoors and not go out during times of the full moon. I have so far been successful in avoiding all lycanthropes in this manner... sjc

AFAIK, all silver should word, even the touch causes skin burns. I can't remember the source, though. Also, in contrast to vampires, werewolves can enter your house, without being invited. For home safety, I always keep a herd of silverfish ;) --Magnus Manske

Too funny. About the article, how much "supposedly" do we want in here? Shouldn't it be obvious they're not real, or do we want to keep reminding people anyway? --Koyaanis Qatsi

I think the article is self-evident, and contains sufficient caveat with the introduction of the word mythology. sjc

Montague Summers ("The Werewolf") believed that the Werewolf was just plain evil (Satanic even). My own belief is split between Crichton's ("The Eaters of the Dead") in that they were so vicious that the survivors of their attack believed that they had mystical abilities to turn into animals and the fact that shamans merge with animals in Dreamtime. That would have been the Neuri of Heroditus ("The Persian Wars") and the Cynocephalids and Cananeans of the Greeks and Romans. Then again, the fact is, as is often true, quite different from the myth. People of the Were community are not vicious at all unless seriously provoked. In fact, they tend to be somewhat altruistic. Also note Harry A. Senn, "Werewolf and Vampire in Romania" for a more positive view of Wereism and see Carlo Ginzburg's "The Night Battles" for the history of Thiess the Werewolf". (Wolf VanZandt, WolfVanZandt@webtv.net)

By the way, according to Adam Douglas in his "The Beast Within" the connection between Werewolves and silver and also the strong connection between Werewolves and the full moon is a modern invention and can be credited to Hollywood (or, at least, the movies). It's not hard to verify his contention. Just try to find references to the moon and silver in anyting before "The Wolfman" in any guise but atmosphere. Werewolves are much more strongly connected to water in the old records. (Wolf VanZandt)

Water? What connections are there to water? Never heard of that. Adam Douglas is right that the silver link was popularized by movies, but silver was thought of as an effective weapon against witches and other beasties (late wendigo stories after European influence, for example) before that. Silver appears to be in the stories after someone evidently decided that iron (as in "cold iron") wasn't fancy enough anymore. (Dan Norder, dannorder@aol.com)

Off hand I can think of three "werewolf" stories in which the element figures prominently. In Pliny' Natural History (book 8, chapter 22), the author relates that the werewolves of Arcadia swam across a lake before changing into a wolf. In Petronius' Satyricon, the soldier who changed into a wolf first stripped and then urinated in a circle around his clothes to change them into a stone and, thus, conceal them. St. Christopher did not cross water before changing into a wolf, but he did cross water before his conversion. Christipher. before his conversion, was a Cananaen named Reprobus. The Cananaens are equated by Pliny in his Natural History to Herodotus' Neuri who were said to change once a year into a wolf. Another werewolf figured in the early church. Andrew was said to have evangelized the Cananaens and began with one named Abominable. Since he (Peter's brother) was the first to evangelize the Cananaens, that seems a much more sensible explanation for why werewolves were called St. Peter's wolves during the Middle Ages than the old tale that Peter tried to create a man in imitation of God and ended up with a werewolf instead. (Wolf VanZandt, WolfVanZandt@webtv.net)


What is the justification for:

  1. Redirecting Talk:Wehrwolf to here, when the topics are barely related; and/or
  2. The claim "some doubt that [the Nazi Wehrwolf movement] was ever really active at all"?

Point 2) sounds like historical revisionism, and point 1) like a trick to disguise point b. There is immense evidence of not merely the existence of Wehrwolf, but of its organisation, internal politics, and many of its operations, e.g. the assassination of the anti-Nazi mayor of Aachen. It was certainly smaller than its creators hoped, but largely because Wilhelm Keitel spent the last few weeks of the war trying to shut it down. I will change both in a couple of days unless I hear a reason not to do so. Securiger 01:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This was posted right at the bottom of the page. Charles Matthews 08:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How to identify Werewolves Ways to identify werewolves are: birthmark on the palm shaped like a star, wolfish tuffs of hair or caul at birth. The cildren born with such were belived to possess magical powers of second sight and metamorphisis.

Elle m'a prédit que je voyagerais! >LePierrotAnguille 05:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will not try to prove to you that werewolves are real, because it always ends in fighting, but, you can become a werewolf by being bitten, or being born that way, no on knows for sure about the first. Silver is a natural allergine, sever enought to kill then, they can also be killed be exterem damage to the brain or heart. There are two kinds of werwolves: Canis Lupins(non spiritual) and lycanthropes (spiritual). For more information from a werewolf expert, my email & Yahoo messanger ID: azenrot@yhoo.com

Hint: it ends in flaming because werewolves, much like Harry Potter or Eskimos, don't exist in real life.

Etymology

I edited the "Origins" section to reflect the fact that the word "werewolf" derives from English's Germanic (and ultimately, its Indo-European) linguistic root stock. The previous version mistakenly asserted that were- comes from Latin vir, when in fact the two are independently cognate via Proto-Indo-European (rather than one deriving from the other). --Ryanaxp 05:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Id like to add that if you take the oldenglish words for werewolf it meaning is "Enemy of Man" Wer being "man" and wulf being "Enemy". Its not noted any where but i think that using this translation and its Proto-Indo-European counterpart, one can asertain that perhaps werewolf was a term for deamons, and not just the folklore myths we are familer with --- Iorek Brynson
I can't really see this as accurate. Where are you getting the translation of "enemy" for "wolf?" The word "wolf" in English comes from *wlkans- in Proto-Indo-European, and is cognate with Greek lycos, latin lupus, etc., which clearly evidences the word to mean "wolf." So I'm afraid I disagree with your proposed etymology, unless you have some strong evidence to support it. —Ryanaxp 19:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's "not noted any where" because it's wrong. And on general principle anything someone claims is true but can't find an actual source to note it with cannot be included in Wikipedia, per the no original research and verifiability rules. DreamGuy 22:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


What is the source for saying that the Old English 'warg' was used in the same way we might use 'serial killer'? The concept of a serial killer is rather modern, and I would prefer to see the definition given on the Warg page ("evildoer, criminal, outcast") here. Jess Gordon 11:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fiction taking over the article

A lot of people like to come here and add information about some TV show/book/film etc. that has some werewolf in it somewhere. In the past it got to be way, way too much information. The space it took up outweighed everything else on the page. The articles Werewolf films and Werewolf novels were created so that there'd be a place for all sorts of trivial mentions that do not advance the main werewolf topic. Now the fiction references are creeping back. Please take it to the appropriate articles. DreamGuy 19:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would have to point out that the fiction references are relevant to the article, as werewolves in fiction is in fact a component of the article. Thus, while the references should not be something that takes up three 'pages' worth of space, they do deserve to be mentioned, especially if they are relevant to that particular section of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.185.96 (talk • contribs) .

Aye, but beginning the history section with a statement about Lycans (that is terminology from the Underworld movie - right?) being known to the Underworld as "Daywalkers" is rather inappropriate unless someone can come up with a reference that places this information within the realm of history instead of fiction. WolfVanZandt 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All those requests for citations are making the article look ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.154.142 (talk • contribs)

The way to avoid that is to provide good references. Coyoty 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

French Werewolves

The Loup-Garou was described as much larger than a wolf, much more vicous and deadly, and much more likely to target human prey. it was also described as a "man beast." It would appear that when the novel "Werewolf of Paris" was made into one of the first successful werewolf films "Werewolf of London" (change of venue), the characteristics of the French Werewolf were retained. Therefore, the characteristics of the French Werewolf became intnisic to most pop culture depictions of werewolfes. WehrWolf 19:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Man beast" just as easily refers to a man changed into a beast as it does a beast with man-like form. And I would disagree strongly that "Werewolf of London" was one of the first successful werewolf films, as that only came out extremely recently, comparatively speaking.DreamGuy 19:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Werewolf of London" was released in 1935 (based on a novel that's even older). Since you didn't know that, either you're not the "expert" you claim to be, or you're several hundred years old and 1935 seems recent to you. Either way, you're being quite the jerk. WehrWolf 19:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I may not be an expert on werewolf fiction (my philosophy is why read fiction when the original legends are more interesting and educational), but werewolf legends, not the fiction, is what's really in dispute in the article. And, please, no personal attacks. I have remained civil with you, please try to do so yourself. DreamGuy 20:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

You must have a very twisted view of reality. I've read your posts, and you're quite rude. Bringing this to your attention is hardly a personal attack. If you will demonstrate civility, so will I. WehrWolf 22:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wolf-man

This statement "French Loup-Garou was described as a man-wolf" does not mean that it resembled a man-like wolf at all. It refers to a man who could change into a wolf, like what the word werewolf means. You are reading things into it based upon your modern ideas.

And the statement "humans suffering from porphyria, rabies and other diseases obviously resembled men more than wolves" is irrelevant, because the idea that werewolves came from people with porphyria or rabies is a modern theory based upon modern fictional ideas of what werewolves are like and unsupported by the original legends.

I will give you that werewolves were thought to be bigger and more vicious, but you have yet to give a source to support the idea that when changed they were man-wolf in appearance. If you get a legitimate reference for that, by all means add that. Until you do that part does not belong in the article. DreamGuy 19:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to address the issue of French werewolves. There seem to be 3 types: the loup-garous, usually an aggressive variety said to be followers of the devil, lubins or lupins, which were usually female and shy, and the bisclavret, a sympathetic variety, good-hearted people who liked turning into wolves (like the poem by Marie de France of the same name). In all these varieties, there may have been some deviant feature that was different than that of a normal wolf. The body might be larger, there might be a short, stubby tail, or no tail at all, the eyes might have some human quality to them (either in color in a look intelligence), etc.
However, I don't remember ever coming across anything like an anthropomorphic wolf/half-human, half-wolf hybrid like you see in the movies, in any werewolf legend, from France or elsewhere. At most you could say the werewolves of legend turned into wolves with an unusual or suspicious feature. In most tales even this is being loose about it, because it seems that those who encounter the transformed creatures generally think they are regular wolves, until they find out later that they aren't (such as if they wound it and find the same wound on a human being later).
As for the mix-up about Werewolf of London, I suppose DreamGuy mistook the title for An American Werewolf in London, which indeed is more recent (even though it came out in the 80s). Settle down, guys. It's an easy enough mistake. Personally, I think The Wolf Man was the most influential werewolf movie. Ever.Putrescent stench 18:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found the following at http://www.timberwolf.org/html/werewolf.html WehrWolf 18:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human Wolves

An eigth-century text Liber Monstrorum - The Book of Monsters - describes a strange race of people living off the edges of the civilized world which feasted on human flesh. This text most likely quotes Plini - who earlier on describes a race known as the Cynocephali or 'Dog-Headed' people.

The folk of the time believed that animals and people were composed of vital essences. To some degree, these were compatible with each other and this placed a heavy burden and resposibility on the individual to preevent monsters such as the Cynocephali on a moral and religious basis. During the middle ages, myths about monsters brought about by the unatural union of man and beast were very popular. One can only speculate that these might be artifice of overactive imaginations to feed our curiosity for the exotic and a fascination with the grotesque - similar to our modern love afair with horror movies and haunted houses. From classical mythology, Middle Ages people inherited a host of human-animals who were part a strange amalgams of the human, the animal and the divine. These beings were the antithesis of humans - often covered with hair, keeping a feral diet mostly consisting of raw foodstuff, lacking speech and using only primitive tools. These people were commonly refered to as "Wild Folk" and people had trouble classifying them as either human or animal.

One such example was Grendel in Beowulf who is described as descended from Cain (and therefore human) but having animal-like qualities - such as extraordinary strength, a penchant for human flesh and antipathy towards humans (whom he considered prey). It's easy to see how these "Wild Men" could in turn give rise to the werewolf myth.

Bestial qualities were not only birthright. They could also be induced. In 1880 a Dr. MacGowan - allegedly a reliable and objective reporter - claims to have witnessed operations in China whereby the hides of dogs and bears were grafted onto the bodies of children. The process was gradual and excruciatingly painful - usually driving the victim mad - which was just as well because it made the subjects appear fiercer and wilder. It is said that vocal chords were severed so that the child was only capable of voicing the gutural barks and growls of the creature he/she was intended to resemble. Joints were broken to force the would-be animal to walk on all fours. [end of quote]

Yes, some bestiaries had dog-headed men, and all sort of other weird things. Those are not werewolves. The Wild Men are also not werewolves. Both of those might be mentioned (using real sources, like a book instead of what some guy wrote on a website) as a somewhat related concept historically, but they don't support the idea that werewolves changed into humanoid wolves. Werewolves existed in myths and folklore long before either of those two. DreamGuy 21:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say these particularly dog heads or wolf head types were Werewolves. Just some interesting information. WehrWolf 17:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silver Bullets

Does anyone know of a Silver Bullet reference older than this one? (1921) WehrWolf 18:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) 

The Werewolf of Hüsby

Karl Müllenhoff In Hüsby near Schleswig there lived an old, stingy woman. She offered her farm hands but little to eat, although there was fresh meat every Sunday. The household wondered about this, because the old woman never bought any meat. A young farm hand wanted to discover the woman's trick, so one day he hid himself in the hayloft instead of going to church with the rest of the household. Suddenly he noticed how the woman pulled out a wolf strap and put it around herself. She immediately became a wolf, ran out into the field, and soon came back with a sheep.

"If she can get meat that easily," thought the boy, "then she can be more generous with us. As the woman put meat into the pot, she sighed and said, as was her custom, "Oh, dear God, if only I were with you!"

The boy, pretending to be God, answered, "You'll not come to me for all eternity."

"Why not, dear God?"

"Because you put too little into the pot for your people."

"Then I'll do better."

"Yes, that's my advice to you."

From now on she put a much larger piece of meat into the pot. But the boy could not remain silent, and in the village he talked about what had happened. When on a Sunday morning the woman again turned herself into a wolf, the people were on guard. However, no bullet could harm her until they finally loaded a flintlock with a silver bullet. From that time to the end of her life the woman had an open wound that no doctor could heal. She never again showed herself as a werewolf.

Source: Karl Müllenhoff, Sagen, Märchen und Lieder der Herzogtümer Schleswig, Holstein und Lauenburg, neue Ausgabe von Otto Mensing (Schleswig, 1921), no. 370.

>>>>>>This one doesn't mention bullets, but references silver buttons.(from 1840)

D. H. Temme Two hundred years ago for a time there was a frightfully large number of werewolves in the city of Greifswald. They were especially prevelant in Rokover Street. From there they attacked anyone who appeared outside of their houses after eight o'clock in the evening. At that time there were a lot of venturesome students in Greifswald. They banded together and one night set forth against the monsters. At first they were powerless against them, until finally the students brought together all of the silver buttons that they had inherited, and with these they killed the werewolves.

Source: J. D. H. Temme, Die Volkssagen von Pommern und Rügen (Berlin: In der Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, 1840), no. 259, p. 308.

Actually, DreamGuy, Pliny links the Dogheads back to the Neuri of Herodotus and those were Werewolves in a very modern sense in that they were said to change into wolves once a month. I tend to say that the Werewolves after the 15th century were not Werewolves in the original sense.

If you look at descriptions of Werewolves, there are drasic discontinuities around the fifth and fifteenth centuries and currently. Before the fifth century (Herodotus, Pliny, Pausanias) have them as rather blood-thirsty and violent people. After the fifth century (Marie de France (and the other Werewolf pomances of the time), the Elder edda, Giraldus, Iacobus de Voradrine) Werewolves may have been good or bad but they were generally regular people who happened to be either cursed or gifted, After the fifteenth century, Werewolves were described as either demonic or insane. Then, currently, Werewolves are described as fairly normal people with not-to-terribly obvious differences. I suspect that the change around the 5th century has mostly to do with acculturation. During the fifteenth century, Werewolves were demonized by the church and most of the victims of the Werewolf trials were not the same people at all but were either mentally ill or were the target of grudges in the community. The shift in understanding of lycanthropy to a clinical model didn't greatly change the popular image of the Werewolf. Neither did fictional accounts. Up until recently, Werewolves were described by others. More recently, descriptions are coming from the Therian community to describe themselves (the term "Werewolf" is actually falling out of favor somewhat due to connection with movies and post-15th century lore and the Therian designation is becoming more popular). These people tend to be fairly well adjusted, intelligent students, professionals, and working class individuals that are far from insane or blood-thirsty.

Thank you, Wehrwolf. That's the early example of a silver bullet I've seen exccept for the fact that the Beast of Gevaudan was killed by a silver bullet, but I think the later case was not focusing on the silver so much as it was melted down church furnishings that had been blessed.

(Wolf VanZandt)

______________________ Therianthropy and Spiritual Therianthropy _________________

The contention that Therianthropy is the same as Spiritual Therianthropy as mentioned in the article is erroneous. There are quite a few modern Therians that do not believe that Therianthropy is related to the possession of an animal soul. There are both physiological and psychological theories that do not comment at all on spirit.

(Wolf VanZandt)

Why is this not better than an imageless article?

File:Howling by masked pup.jpeg
Costume of a werewolf.

if you have to ask, then youll never realize just how sad that image is... relaly man its pathetic.

Gabrielsimon 01:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Zanimum, we've argued previously over on Talk:Kigurumi about your tendency to overload articles with photos of costumes that don't properly represent the subject of that article. I hope you'll accept that an article that encompasses all of the history and breadth of werewolf legend within its scope is not going to be well served by a photo of a guy in a rubber mask as its sole and primary illustration. Something like an old woodcarving might be better suited to that role. Bryan 04:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
So, let's see this woodcarving that supposedly exists. -- user:zanimum
I don't have one handy or I would have put it up already. I suggested it only as an example of what I think is appropriate, the sort of illustration one might find in an old book on the subject from back when the best-known werewolf myths originated. Bryan 00:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if anyones got a picture of any of us, we avoid humans except when we're eating them.

Full moon

The opening paragraph of the article makes it seem as if in pre-modern folklore, the full moon was not an element in werewolf transformations. I will soon edit that mistake and provide references that prove what I'm saying. Decius 01:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide references before you edit the alleged mistake. DreamGuy 05:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was intending to do. Observe that no editing was done on that topic....Decius 19:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's good though to see a person very concerned with references for all points, as I am also. I notice that there is no reference for the implied claim that the full moon was not an element in pre-modern folkore. I suspect that tidbit was based on only one or two references, which are likely wrong, because I remember credible written sources that say otherwise. Decius 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you think you have references, provide them instead of just claiming you are right. At the very least, the modern conception that werewolves always transform during full moons is false, as most transformations happened regardless of the state of the moon. Finding a small number of examples in old folklore where the moon might have something to do with it, assuming you can, doesn't change the overall fact that the primary reasons for transformation had nothing to do with moon cycles. This is in pretty much ALL credible sources, and such common knowledge in the field that providing a cite is a lot less necessary than it would be for about half of the rest of the unsourced information in the article. DreamGuy 06:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's not common knowledge, it's a common conception. And for sure the full moon was not a dominant factor (and I was not in any way implying that the full moon was always believed to enable transformations, I was just saying that in some attested pre-modern traditions or in some pre-modern cases the transformation was said to occur especially during a full moon): but any instance cited in pre-modern folklore of the full moon being directly associated with the transformation negates the sentence, no matter how one slices it. And I will backtrack and find it again, most likely. Decius 22:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, you aren't making sense. It's actually common conception that full moon was involved, and that's the part that's wrong. DreamGuy

Wouldn't you know it, after writing that last comment of mine above I already found one such credible reference in a rather well-known and well-researched book, but just to seal the case I will most likely wait till I find a second reference. Decius 22:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should just give the references. This statement of yours was nothing but egotism and telling how much smearter than everyone else you think you are without bothering to back it up. DreamGuy 05:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Till then, people should note that something that is commonly repeated in a number of references is not always correct. A common conception (promoted by most neo-pagans, etc.) is that before the influence of Judaeo-Christianity, witches in Europe were not associated with practicing evil magic. This is in fact a false conception, disproven by such instances as the witch of Lemnos who was executed in Athens for practicing malefic magic and further disproven by the case of Circe in the Odyssey---and other instances, etc. Decius 22:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And NO KIDDING that something that is commonly repeated is not always correct. I'm not talking about commonly repeated but wrong, I am talking about fully proven. This little side argument of yours here is a straw man argument. DreamGuy 05:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found a second reference even better than the first. Next I'm going to name them, quote them, then edit the sentence at issue. Decius 01:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, the less conclusive but still credible reference: Colin Wilson in his 1971 work, The Occult (Random House Inc.) had a chapter titled Withcraft and lycanthropy. On page 441-442 of my 1973 editon (second edition, this time published by Vintage books, ISBN 0-394-71813-5) we find this paragraph:

"Montague Summers tells a great many tales of werewolves, in his credulous way, but few of them add anything to what we have already said. On the contrary, it becomes quite clear that most of them must be dismissed as inventions and old wives' tales. There is one element common to most of them: someone attacked by a werewolf manages to cut off its paw (or put out its eye, or wound it in the throat); later, a man or woman is found without a hand and confesses to being the werewolf. Olaus Magnus, a medieval chronicler, tells the story of a slave who wanted to convince his mistress that werewolves existed, and came out of the cellar in the form of a wolf; attacked by her dogs, he lost an eye. Both Montague Summers and Sir James Frazer (in The Golden Bough) tell the story of a hunstman of Auvergne who cut off the paw of a wolf that attacked him; recounting the story to a friend, he discovered that the paw had changed into a woman's hand, with a ring on the finger, which the friend recognized as belonging to his wife. The wife, nursing a wrist from which the hand had been amputated, confessed to being a werewolf, and was executed. Frazer then goes on to tell stories of Chinese were-tigers, were-cats, and even were-crocodiles, making it clear that each part of the world has its variation on the theme. Common to many of these stories is the notion that transformation occurs only at the time of the full moon (the White Goddess again), and that if the hands or feet of the were-creature are amputated, its power is permanently lost. "

Wilson goes on describing more. Okay, as you can see, the quote that is bolded is referring to the full moon being an element in the transformations of were-creatures in general. But I found a second reference which is the specific reference needed. Though note that if the full moon was not involved in werewolf transformations, a good researcher like Colin Wilson should have noted that at least in parentheses, but the way he states it implies that werewolves were included. Second reference will be quoted next. Decius 01:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Colin Wilson most certainly is NOT a good reference, and neither is Frazer's White Goddess. Both are modern writers who had very specific biases. Wilson actually believed in occult things and tried to find semi-rational ways to explain them. The moon theory is one which he no doubt tried to tie to the urban legend that people go mad on the full moons. And Frazer is the king of blatant speculation to support his own theories yet without any evidence to back it up. He believed that there was an ancient moon goddess that was worshipped universally by prehistoric tribes, a theory which has been proven false. You need actually evidence with real facts instead of rampant speculation by two very bad sources. DreamGuy 05:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The second reference is Strange Stories, Amazing Facts 1976, a hardcover book published by the Reader's Digest Association Inc. The book had a section on werewolves titled Big Bad Werewolves. On page 435 we find this quote:

"There are many ways in which a man may become a werewolf. A medieval churchman, Gervase of Tilbury, said that stripping naked and rolling in the sand under a full moon was an effective method."

And there we have it. If that book is accurately quoting Gervase of Tilbury (and I have no reason to suppose it isn't), then there is the pre-modern instance. I remember other instances also, and other references mentioning that the full moon was indeed directly linked to the man to wolf transformation. I'll try to find additional references. For now, I'm inclined to view the statement in this Wikipedia article as mistaken, and I'm going to fix it. Decius 02:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did I ention that you have horribly crappy sources? Reader's Digest? Dear lord. DreamGuy 05:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

That Reader's Digest book most likely correctly quoted Gervase of Tilbury (ca.1200 ad). The Gervase quote is repeated on various websites, including this one [[1]. See Werewolves section, first paragraph. Decius 02:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point you are STILL missing, even though it was mentioned above, is that there are TONS of things that are mentioned off the cuff in lots of werewolf legends. Finding one or two mentions from an old source is not at all the same thing as saying that it was a common belief or, more to the point, that it was at all like the modern conception. IF you want to add this info to the article, then you should add an actual quoyte IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF (not some confused part in the lead) and in encyclopedia speak. The actual part of the lead that you insist upon changing, however, is accurate. In fictional treatments in the 19th century and after it DOES take place on full moons. It is important that it's noted that was not common until then, which is what most people get into their heads from being exposed to modern fiction, when in reality the vast majority of sources have no mention of the moon at all, and the ones that do are small and trivial. Your attempted rewording is thoroughly clumsy and tries to solve a problem that is only in your head. DreamGuy 05:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow, you really take this to the heart. I guess you are really into werewolves. The only thing I intended to show here is that the full moon was directly linked to the werewolf transformation in pre-modern lore. I don't give a fuck what you have to say further, and don't try to come off as some sort of werewolf expert. I was never implying that the full moon was a prevalent element. Yet it was mentioned as directly linked to the werewolf transformation in pre-modern lore. The article overlooked this. Decius 19:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i know a lot about them, and your still wrong. how either start showing civillity or be banned. see, editing out your rudeness is good. you claming to be an expert?

oh and, since your wrong, it makes dreamguy right, too bad theres nothing to be done about it, because the truth is the truth. Gabrielsimon 19:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I know that the full moon was related to the werewolf transformation in pre-modern sources in some cases. That's it. Decius 20:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"some" doenst make it noteable. Gabrielsimon 20:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Both of you have misinterpreted this situation. I'm not claiming that the full moon was a prevelant factor in pre-modern lore---quote an instance where I said this. Nevertheless, even if one instance is attested (and I remember more), it shows that it was not invented in later fiction. That is notable. Decius 20:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the number of times it was mentioned in premodern literature is too small to be noteable. Gabrielsimon 20:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason it is notable is because it traces a well-known idea in pop culture further back than its supposed first appearance in fiction. It shows that it dates back into the older lore. Decius 20:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


in that light your gonna tell me that horrodatus was correct about the meathod of pyramid contriuction thaat was obviosuly bunk, but the lone source says its so, so we mus beleive? Gabrielsimon 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, about the 'rudeness': I was doing my best to be polite yesterday and before, but his further comments did not warrant it. Decius 20:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether you think someone deserves it or not is not important. You were completely out of line. You must follow Wikipedia policy.DreamGuy 06:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

i can understand that, its just the profanity i disaproove of. Gabrielsimon 20:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He reacted like I expected he would: with overuse of CAPS in his responses (the hallmark sign of a crank), cheap personal remarks in his comments on this talk page (I made no such comments towards him before his lame 'attacks'), and totally erasing mention of the pre-modern full moon element from the text. I can assure you all this amuses me, and is one of the added bonuses of Wikipedia. Decius 20:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, what, blabbering on about completely unrelated things as if they support your side, missing what everyone else is saying, being dead set in your views and ridiculing other people instead of even trying to discuss the logic of the dispute, as your comments here demonstrate, is not an example of a crank? Stop being a hypocrite, as your behavior here has been atrocious. If you were not so condescending in your statements here and stuck to just the reference, like was requested of you in the very beginning, you could have avoided this. DreamGuy 06:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

then report his lack of etiquette. there are measures that can be taken to provide some relief from this.

Gabrielsimon 20:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


i removed reference to premodern text, and allow it to be more ambigous (spelling?) so it can stay... i think


Gabrielsimon 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And GabrielSimon, I don't mean to 'attack' you, but your previous statement above on this talk page that "werewolves in truth don't hurt anybody, they're just born that way", makes me seriously doubt your views on the topic. Decius 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message filmbuff42 on YIM to discuss frther, should you wish to. Gabrielsimon 22:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And if you're trying to impress people with your 'expertise', DreamGuy, you should note that Robert Graves wrote The White Goddess (1948), not Sir James Frazer (>The Golden Bough). When Wilson says in parentheses "the White Goddess again", Wilson is not referring to Frazer's book or Frazer's beliefs; Wilson was making his own connection, based on his reading of Graves. Your attempted summary of Frazer's beliefs is in fact a summary of Robert Graves' beliefs, which are irrelevant in a criticism of Frazer. Frazer posited not a "white goddess", but a sacred king as his prime concept, a totally different theory. Decius 23:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The White Goddess and The Golden Bough are both regarded as highly speculative and unsupported by the facts. Don't fool yourself into thinking that my haste in posting means anything significant to the point up for discussion. Your sources still are awful, you don't understand the topic, and jumping on a mistake in a tangent doesn't help your case at all. DreamGuy 06:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the moon in werewolf myths: Is anyone aware of a specific source for the idea of a person born under the new moon becoming a werewolf? -Sean Curtin 00:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat sure that there is a specific written source for that. The same was also said of vampires, believe it or not (have that reference). In folklore, certain elements were often interchangeable between werewolves and vampires. Decius 00:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius asked me to come weigh in on the debate over whether the full moon was involved in older werewolf legends, and although I'm not well-read on such things perhaps an outside view on the debate might help. It looks to me like heels have been dug in on both sides, but that the current wording of the article strikes a balance similar to those suggested for resolving POV disputes with both sides presented (an example of full moon involvement as well as the statement that full moon involvement was rare). How about letting it sit for a few days to let tempers cool on all sides? References have been presented and linked so the current version can at least be verified in future if it turns out to be inaccurate or incomplete. There's no hurry on this. Bryan 03:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full moon: a textbook example of how not to make edits

The problems we've had here could have been very easily avoided. Decius came in here claiming that the part about the full moon in the lead was wrong, but it wasn't. Then he said he'd give references but didn't, instead choosing to insult the knowledge of the people who put the correct information in the lead. Then he finally did come back with references, but they did not support the idea that the lead was wrong, just the way he in his head interpreted what the lead said. (And in the meantime gets off into more tangents, bragging about the alleged reliability of his sources when they are kind of the equivalent of a Dick and Jane Talk Werewolves coloring book). And then when he finally took the time to understand what the lead actually said, instead of saying, "Oops, my bad, I didn't read that right" he just says, "Oh wow, you really take this to the heart." (well, yeah, I take having a good encyclopedia to heart, if I didn't I would have given up on this place, as cleaning up after people who shouldn't be conributing to an encyclopedia in the first place is no fun at all) then "The only thing I intended to show here is that the full moon was directly linked to the werewolf transformation in pre-modern lore." (I never would have argued againt the idea that there was some minor reference to it somewhere, and I pointed this out to him a long time back) and then "I don't give a fuck what you have to say further, and don't try to come off as some sort of werewolf expert." (gee, sorry that my actually being an expert gets in the way of your attempts to pretend to be the only expert here). If he had come here and said, "OK, what's with that part in the lead about the moon, I don't get it" (instead of the it's wrong and you people don't know what you are talking about nonsense) and let people explain it to him, an edit to get in his minor bit of information in somewhere would have been trivial. DreamGuy 06:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please, DreamGuy, you're also helping in making this a textbook example. According to my reading of the comments above you swung immediately into attack mode when Decius first started discussing this matter, apparently not assuming good faith. Decius has subsequently provided the references he talked about, and his most recent edits to the lead section left in the caveats that you've been arguing should be included. I think the argument may have a life of its own now, please consider that maybe the other guy isn't editing in bad faith and that the main reason you're angry is because the other guy's angry too. All this he said/she said stuff isn't helping, on either side. Bryan 08:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


he does this every time, tjis dreamguy, never listens....

Gabrielsimon 20:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Werewolves can hurt you but they won't go hurting random people unless they are a mass murderer. You can be born a werewolf or you might be able 2 become 1 (but no real method is known and most include banging your head on the ground). WolfStar

Moved fiction section to new article

Someone recently went through and added some more trivial mentions of werewolves in movies and so forth, ignoring the articles on werewolf films and werewolf novels that had been created for this purpose. A comparison with the contents of this article and those two articles showed massively redundant information, including variant ideas on the many of the topics, with the articles that were supposedly there to be a full list of all such ficitonal works often not having anywhere the detail included on the article that was supposed to be about werewolves in general. These had basically became useless fork files. So, because I knew that people would just keep making the problem worse unless something was done about it, I was bold and moved the list parts and specifics to a brand new Werewolves in fiction article that is merged from the old (and ignored) novel and films articles and a bulk of this one. That article still needs to be cleaned up (needs television section, redundancies removed, etc.) so all the people who were only here to add fiction, now you have a place to channel your interest. Note that there still is a section here at least mentioning it, as the silver bullet thing is still important for overall knowledge of werewolves, but any significant expansion of that section should be placed on the new article instead. DreamGuy 19:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian werewolves

Please vet this addition, from an anonymous passer-by: "Russia (volkodlak, vurdalak), Ukraine(Viy)" Are both these Russian words accurate? --Wetman 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruvaush

Copied from the article Ruvaush (now a redirect):

'''Ruvaush''' is the Romani-gypsy victim of Romani vampire witch who is doomed to become a werewolf. It is Periodically transform into Wolf-kings larger than the normal wolf.

Etymology edit

I added information about the loup-garou. I also switched the order of the initial etymology (I didn't get rid of any info, I only moved it around) to reflect the fact that the 'were' of werewolf is definitely of Germanic origin, the only debate is exactly from which Germanic word. I think the information about PIE was confusing where it was so I moved it to a place that makes it more obvious that it pre-dates the Germanic (and Latin, Irish, etc.) forms and is hypothetical. Whoever originally did this did good research, but I think it is now more readable and comprehensible and reflective of the speculative nature of etymology. Hraefen 01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are looking for good info about the etymology of "werewolf", check out the paper on the subject presented by Earl Cawdor to the Rorburghe Club in 1832. It was reprinted in The Ancient English Romance of William & the Werwolf by Frederick Madden, published in 1970 by Lenox Hill Publishers of New York.

don't bury the main article's Table of Contents

If you are going to edit the main article, please don't bury the table of contents by adding more and more sentences to the first paragraph. Doing that sort of thing makes it less readable. Two or three sentences for the first paragraph are good enough; add a section header after it, and let it go at that.

LSD and Ergot Modification

I made a slight modification to the comment about LSD and ergot in the 'Origins' section. I simply made it clear that LSD cannot be obtained directly via ergot but rather indirectly through the chemicals obtained from the fungus. Jonathan, November 30th.

Why does "Lycan" redirect to this page?

As far as I'm aware, the only serious use of the word occurs in Underworld (2003 film). It's not an accepted word in any dictionary-type source I know of, and "define: lycan" on Google goes only to this page. I've only seen it used on Internet message boards, &c. a few times. It seems like the term is pretty clearly not a generic word, and doesn't mean much outside the context of that one particular movie. Shouldn't it redirect there? (That page, in turn, explains that it's the film's term for werewolves.)

Indeed, especially considering the only Wikipedia article that links to Lycan appears to be doing so by mistake (Myth (computer game) has a link formed thusly: [[lycan]]thropic). I'm changing it as you suggest. Bryan 05:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
That's where it used to redirect to until some anonymous editor switched it without comment, so I would agree that switching it back is a good thing. DreamGuy 23:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The word Lycan comes from the Greek word Lykanos which means wolf. VilaWolf

Yes, but the point is that nobody uses "Lycan" to mean "werewolf" aside from the movie "Underworld". So anyone who links to Lycan is talking about something in the movie Underworld rather than about werewolves in general, so Lycan should redirect to the article about the movie rather than the article about werewolves in general. The movie's article links here for people who want more information about werewolves in general. Bryan 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the linking does make sense. Underworld's usage of the word is an obvious truncation of "lycanthrope" which is another word for werewolf.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werewolf/Archive_1&oldid=1054733097"