Talk:Clinical lycanthropy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old discussion

I'm adding this note to attribute the bulk of the material I just added to the article to User:Vaughan, who wrote it up for a Kuro5hin article and gave me permission to copy into here. I did some editing in the process of pasting, but didn't add much work of my own. Bryan 20:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i thaught this was spelled lyncanthropy.... for the medical state

Gabrielsimon 21:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of that, and Google only finds obvious cases of misspelling when I do a search for it. Do you have any references? Bryan 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

cf Furries?

Clinical lycanthropy is not closely related to furry fandom. Most of furry fandom isn't even particularly shapeshifting-oriented from what I've seen of it. Bryan 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unlinking see also

I do not beleive that Therianthropy has anything to do with clinical lycanthropy, simply because Clinical Lycanthropy is a medical condition, and Therianthropy is more of a spiritual belief, most of the time, thus the link was removed.Gavin the Chosen 16:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Judging from how the articles define these topics, they are indeed quite closely related IMO. Clinical lycanthropy is the most verifiable type of therianthropy. Friday (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
with no mention of Therianthropy in the article anywhere else, it doesn't seem to be in good form to put the see also link there. Gavin the Chosen 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Trying to remove the mention is a highly biased action from someone going around all the related articles trying to remove any possible mention of anything that might even indirectly put bad light onto a subculture to which Gabrielsimon aka Gavin the Chosen self-identifies. Removing the link simply will not be tolerated. DreamGuy 17:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
agai, with n no mention of therianthropy in the article, the link is extraneous, and added by DreamGuy, so no wonder he, who thinks he owns the site, seemingly, wants to preserve what he put in. but with no ,mention of it in the article, as of this time, there's no reason to have it at all. Gavin the Chosen 17:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
There's a "see also" going the other way around. Clearly the topics are related. I see no reason at all not to include it. Friday (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, if therianthropy had been mentioned in the article, it would be linked there, and there would be no need for a "See Also" link. Because it is not mentioned in the article, it could be a "See Also." FreplySpang (talk) 00:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

the point is that since this subject has absolutely nothing to do with herianthropy, then the see also link doesn't belong. that's almost like on the emperor penguins page say see also, emperor... makes no sense!Gavin the Chosen 02:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because two things are not the same does not mean that they are unrelated. The point of See Also, as I see it, is to lead the reader to other articles that may be of interest. Someone reading about clinical lycanthropy may easily find the article on therianthropy useful. I think that Gavin's point is that linking the two articles implies that therians are clinical lycanthropes. I couldn't disagree more. Indeed, I think that the link can just as easily serve to imply the opposite, depending on the viewpoint of the reader. This is the essence of NPOV: letting the readers draw their own conclusions. Mistercow 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well said, and I agree. If they were the same thing, there would hardly be two different articles, right? I think the link should be there, and as you said, readers can draw their own conclusions. Friday (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question:

Is this condition a perminant belief that one has become an animal of some type, or is it a shifting-back-and-forth thing - IE, do Clinical Lycanthropes believe they are in human form at some times, and animal form at other times, or do they believe they are always in animal form? Thanks! Hipocrite 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'd appreciate answers phrased in the form of: "I am a professional in the field, and," "The following source written by a professional in the field says:"


some of each. some of them kinda go feral, and othgers only do so at certain times.Gavin the Chosen 20:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This answer is not acceptable. I hope that someone who is interested in getting the answer right, rather than winning whatever argument you're having at the moment will get back to me. Hipocrite 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
so you can nopt find the truth acceptable? strange. perhaps you just donmt like that its coming from me, considering that youve tried to place trather degrading lables and headers above my words, and simply deleted it from your talk page when i asked you to stop. whatever happened to assuming good faith? a policeyu your OBVIOUSLY not following.Gavin the Chosen 20:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Influence

This section was added by an anon. It looks completely unsupported and most of it's probably original research, but maybe something should be mentioned in the article about it one way or the other since it's probably a common idea. Bryan 06:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that the solar body decides our sense of coordination, emotion, and general comfortableness. The moon's cycle of 28 days(a lunar month) decides a woman's menstrual cycle, when eggs are laid for various birds and amphibians. It has obviously been also linked to lycanthropy in that generally most cases ocurred not on the full month/moon but exactly two weeks before it. The moon's presidence in the night sky determines air pressure on inland ares up to 350km from shore, amount of visible light at night, aggresiveness of animals and insect to mate and hunt, and the emotional mood of a person. It has never been studied but it is suspected that nocturnal individuals and animals levels of adrenaline tend to rise in the light of a full moon.

[edit] Origins of the Term "Lycanthropy"

The article currently says "It is named after the mythical condition of lycanthropy, a supernatural affliction in which people are said to physically shapeshift into werewolves." It was my understanding that the reverse is the case. The Online Eymology Dictionary says this about it: "Originally a form of madness (described by ancient writers) in which the afflicted thought he was a wolf; applied to actual transformations of persons (esp. witches) into wolves since 1830." [1] If no one objects, I'll probably alter the text to indicate this is the case in a couple days. - Glynth 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The "online etymolog dictionary" is just some site thrown together by someone who wrote some civil war books. I don't think it counts as a reliable source, especially when it contradicts countless books on the topic. All the way back to Greek myth it described a person who actually changed into a wolf and not merely that they had the delusion. DreamGuy 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That site is considered a reliable source by many other credible sources, such as the oft-cited dictionary.com. It's not just "some guy who wrote some books' site." I'm not saying it's the ultimate authority either, but you attack the source, which is referenced many times and is itself really just a collection of information drawn from its own list of credible sources (published dictionaries and the like), without providing evidence that the term was actually used as you say it was. In any case, I'm going to need more than just your opinion and your personal assurance that this is the case. In my (admittedly brief) research I found stories of people turning into wolves in ancient myth and people today connecting that to modern usage of the word, but no one took that final important step and showed that "lycanthropy" was a term actually used by these ancient people to indicate the transformation itself before it was used to indicate the mental condition. I could very well be wrong but I'd like evidence first. - Glynth 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I think you're confusing what the article talks about. It discusses the origin of the term 'clinical lycanthropy' which is indeed named after the mythical condition 'lycanthropy'. If you want to discuss the etymology of 'lycanthropy' per se you should do it in the lycanthropy article. However, according to the OED, the term 'lycanthropy' was indeed first used, at least in literature, to describe a madness. OED entry below. - Vaughan 10:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
“

1. A kind of insanity described by ancient writers, in which the patient imagined himself to be a wolf, and had the instincts and propensities of a wolf. Now occasionally applied as a name of those forms of insanity in which the patient imagines himself a beast, and exhibits depraved appetites, alteration of voice, etc., in accordance with this delusion.

1584 R. SCOT Discov. Witchcr. V. i. (1886) 73 Lycanthropia is a disease and not a transformation. 1594 T. B. La Primaud. Fr. Acad. II. 166 That malady, which is..named by the Græcians..lycanthropie. 1621 BURTON Anat. Mel. I. i. I. iv, Lycanthropia,..or Wolf-madness, when men run howling about graves and fields in the night, and will not be persuaded but that they are wolves or some such beasts. a1656 BP. HALL St. Paul's Combat i. Wks. 1808 V. 321 It is contrary to the delusions of lycanthropy. There, he, that is a man, thinks himself a beast; here, he, that is a beast, thinks himself a man. 1672 MARVELL Reh. Transp. I. 68 His Madness hath formed itself into a perfect Lycanthropy. He doth so verily believe himself to be a Wolf, that his speech is all turned into howling, yelling, and barking. a1779 WARBURTON Serm. on Matt. iv. 24 Wks. 1788 V. 429 The madness called Lycanthropy. 1818 LADY MORGAN Fl. Macarthy (1819) III. ii. 75, I am not well, surely, Sir,..and thinks betimes that it's the lycanthropia I have got, which Maister Camden saith was common to the ancient Irish. 1891 DRIVER Introd. Lit. O.T. (1892) 469 Nebuchadnezzar's seven years' insanity (lycanthropy) with his edict respecting it. 1891 W. C. SYDNEY Eng. 18th C. I. 27 Young boys and girls were bred..in crime, even to the pitch of moral lycanthropy.

2. The kind of witchcraft which was supposed to consist in the assumption by human beings of the form and nature of wolves.

1830 SCOTT Demonol. vii. 210 Persons accused of the crime of lycanthropy. 1865 LECKY Ration. I. I. 82 Lycanthropy or the transformation of witches into wolves.

 ”
You've essentially made my point, here, Vaughan, with one important difference: I think you're confusing what the phrase "named after" implies and even outright means. This is what the article currently reads, as I quoted earlier: "It is named after the mythical condition of lycanthropy, a supernatural affliction in which people are said to physically shapeshift into werewolves." The key words there are "named AFTER," which tells readers that the term "clinical lycanthropy" was named AFTER mythical stories of lycanthropy - that is, these stories came FIRST chronologically - when in reality, as I was saying and as your source seems to verify, the term "lycanthropy" was first used to describe the mental disorder and only later did it apply to actual transformation and it wasn't until after this second definition gained in popularity that it became necessary to add the word "clinical" in order to distinguish it from the now-more-often used meaning of the word, which is the supernatural condition. 'A' cannot be "named after" 'B' if 'B' was in reality named after 'A.' From what I can tell, "lycanthropy" the supernatural condition was named after "lycanthropy" the mental disorder; you cannot have it both ways and at best it is misleading to leave the article the way it is if this is true. Again, the word "clinical" is only added to distinguish it from the more-commonly-used defition of lycanthropy; that doesn't mean "clinical lycanthropy" is named after supernatural lycanthropy. Once this is cleared up, if my understanding proves to be correct, it would make sense to add a few words to this effect on the lycanthropy page as well, but that doesn't mean we can leave this article how it stands now. - Glynth 11:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Lycanthropy for turning into the beast form goes back to ancient Greece. The fact that some writing discussed the issue and did not believe in the supernatural aspect and thus said it was only a delusion doesn't change the fact that the original references (as well as other references the whole time that DID believe in supernatural) existed, and that's what the article is referring to, and it's correct, so leave it alone. DreamGuy 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see both points. The phrase 'named after' does not purely imply chronological order, but inspiration (saying Alexander Graham Bell was named after Alexander the Great is literally correct but misleading). However, as far as the OED is concerned the word lycanthropy was first invented to describe the madness. We can't say whether the modern clinical term was inspired by the mythical version, or is a direct decendent from the original description of madness, as we would have to know the mental state of the people who reintroduced the modern clinical term and I can't find anything which notes their reasoning. However, perhaps a compromise would be good. Rather than 'It is named after...', perhaps 'it is the clinical equivalent of...', and further information could also be added about the original use of the term without getting into any discussion about what was 'named after' what. - Vaughan 09:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you not read the above? The term very clearly came about from actual beliefs that people would change. Hell, the very first cite in the OED is someone arguing against the OLDER belief that it was a real transformation. You're arguing from a complete misunderstanding of the facts and the sources, and actual refs to sources on the topic would trump whatever the OED says (or more importantly what you THINK the OED says). Some quote from the 16th century doesn't prove the origin of a term that goes back to ancient Greece and has been used in one form or another that whole time. This whole debate is just ludicrous. DreamGuy 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there DreamGuy, to answer your comment in the edit, I'm basing the information on reports from the peer-reviewed medical literature, rather than general books. This is from the Garlipp et al paper, one of the references already cited by the article:
Lycanthropy was first described in medical literature in the second century after Christ by the Greek Marcellus from Side (3). In the 16th and 17th century it was discussed if lycanthropy might be the manifestation of a natural disease, the influence of Satan or witches or the effect of poison or toxic salves.
The issue is whether the clinical condition inspired the name for the legend or vice versa. It seems the passage above, or any other source we've found so far, doesn't make this clear. The fact that the 16th century name came from the Greeks doesn't imply that the Greek sources thought that this genuinely happened. The fact that it is cited in Greek medical literature, suggests that they may have been well aware it was a mental disorder, and not a real transformation. None of the sources cited so far seem to settle this issue, so a good option would be to have a neutral statement in the article that doesn't make a leading statement either way. New sources would be welcome of course. - Vaughan 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What you're not quite grasping (no insult intended), Vaughan, is that, YES, the phrase "named after" means something's name was inspired by something else (not simply that it was chronologically "named after" that other thing), BUT, as I stated before, clinical lycanthropy cannot be named after (AKA inspired by) mythical lycanthropy if mythical lycanthropy in fact was named after clinical lycanthropy (though the word "clinical" was not necessary back then). If the term "lycanthropy" referred to the clinical definition before it also involved the mythical sense of the word, then "clinical lycanthropy" cannot possibly have been named after the mythical sense. If A = C and B's name was inspired by C, A's name cannot have been inspired by B because A and C are the same thing (A just put "clinical" in there to differentiate itself from the now-more-popular B). It's really rather simple; I think you are overcomplicating things.
In the end, though, you are right in that a neutral statement would be best until we get a more definitive answer from a credible source. - Glynth 00:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you both just need to read more, and pay attention when things are explained to you. The idea that the mythical sense was named after the medical sense is absolute nonsense, and the "medical literature" cites above do not say what they are being presented as saying. The original term comes from the myths of King Lycaon in Greek myth, who was changed into a wolf, literally and not figuratively. This predates any recorded Greek philosophers, even if there were some arguing that the idea was madness. This whole conversation is just a disaster area, as anyone who has read any major sources on this topic would know where the name came from. Hell, go look at the Werewolf article if nothing else. Bottomline here is people are free to be ignorant if they really want to be, and to not go educate themselves once they have been pointed in the right direction, but they do not have the right to edit an article to be less informative and less helpful just because they know less than the people who contributed to it already. Your enthusiasm is to be commended, but an encyclopedia depends on solid information and not just sheer desire to change something. DreamGuy 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, do not insult me. I paid attention to what you posted. You just don't AGREE with what either of us posted, and you haven't firmly backed anything up you've said with citable sources. Like I said, I may very well be wrong, but I want REAL evidence of it, not some guy yelling at me to "pay attention" or "read more" without bothering to back it up. And then you bring up King Lycaon? Now this may also very well be wrong, but the Lycanthrope article currently states: "Folk-etymology also links the word to Lycaon, a king of Arcadia... ." That's folk-etymology, AKA unverified-at-best and quite likely outright false etymology. In short, stop acting like a know-it-all. I may be wrong, but I'm not arrogant about it. Your attitude has been nothing but belligerent and condescending from the very outset of this discussion. - Glynth 04:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Glynth, the OED only lists the first use of the word in the English language. It's obviously a Greek word, but it could be that the word itself was used in an ancient Greece (like epilepsy) or that it is a Greek word but an English coinage (like schizophrenia). From the OED entry, its first use in English literature was to refer to the madness, but if the word was from Ancient Greece, we can't be sure. It seems we have no definitive answers to any of these questions, and, exactly as you say need citations to be more definite. This includes your suggestion DreamGuy, that the King Lycaon etymology is the correct one. - Vaughan 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Dreamguy & Vaughan, I don't want to get embroiled in a big argument here. I just think we need credible, citable sources, as Vaughan has said, especially since I've seen in multiple places that the King Lycaon "origin" is only folk-etymology. If something definitive cannot be cited within a couple of days, I suggest changing the language to be more neutral in regards to what was named after what. If the mental condition is shown to have come first, I then suggest that not only this article reflect that but that the lycanthropy article be updated to give that information as well, as it would be an interesting and relevant fact. I'll refrain from making the edits myself for several days as the facts are still being uncovered; in fact, I might not make the change at all, depending on several factors, so if you do find something conclusive, feel free to make the edits yourselves. - Glynth 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that and am happy for the article to reflect a neutral stance on the issue, pending definitive sources - Vaughan 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)