Talk:Werewolf/Archive 1

message: Uh, werewolves feature in horror films. They also feature in mythology, books and TV shows.
So why Horror?
E9  TALK |	E9  TALK |	ROCKER!!	ROCKER!!	ROCKAB00M  TALK	ROCKAB00M  TALK	on a  Page	on a  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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Horror 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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)
replies: text: The way to avoid that is to provide good references.  Coyoty 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction taking over the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wolf-man

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Russian and Ukrainian werewolves

message: 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)
thread_title: Etymology edit

message: 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: lycanthropic). I'm changing it as you suggest. Bryan 05:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why does "Lycan" redirect to this page?