Talk:Clinical lycanthropy

Has nothing to do with furry

removed the link to furry fandom as it has almost absolutely nothing to do with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.152.68 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with Furry Fandom, link should be removed 80.41.223.64 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. "Furry" is a label that some individuals use who feel they are non-human emotionally, spiritually, and/or physically (believe they can physically change into another species). Some of these individuals would meet the definition of someone with lycanthropy, would they not? Perhaps "furry" should be referenced with the stipulation that not all furries would be considered as having lycanthropy. The term "furry fandom" suggests the definition includes only those who are fans of non-humans, but do not feel they are non-human themselves. This is a common misunderstanding for those who aren't very familiar with the definition of "furry" and the wide range of individuals it encompasses. Swiftpaw (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

i think you are confusing therianthropy with furry https://therian.fandom.com/wiki/Furry_Fandom Pigeonbloodblues (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol..First thing I thought when I read this was that Furries should at least be mentioned here, and the talk page didn't disappoint. I have a feeling that half of the Wikipedia editors are furries, and are probably offended by this article to begin with. 223.25.57.23 (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The opening statement is poorly written

The first sentence of this article can be read/understood to imply that the clinician is the one having the delusion that a patient can turn into an animal, not that the patient has the delusion! Somebody please rephrase it so it does not read so ambiguously. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.5.25 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

many members of the fandom believe to be in fact an animal in a human body (from what i have seen of it, of course i could be mistaking); therefore i would say that the two are quite related, and connecting the articles will help any reader trying to understand both phenomenons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.101.69 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What you appear to be describing would fall under Therianthropy as a primarily spiritual subculture. Depending on the (non-human) inner species identity, Otherkin might be more appropriate too. As I understand it, this article speaks of those who believe their physical form to be non-human, which is not what you are describing. --Tathar (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

To Bryan

I know that the solar symbols do take part in the werewolf cycle as well as animals and female humans'... but I have to note you that a more expierenced werewolf/Lycanthropes do not only come out(transform) on full moons but are capable of doing it any night by will, but choose full mooned nights mostly because it makes them stronger...that is when the feed and are suppose to be very aggressive then as well. Please reply today! Isebella Wolf (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)BellaIsebella Wolf (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

==To Glynth== -I know that the word "Lycanthropy" comes from two very easily broken down words..."Lycan" meaning Werewolf...and "thropy" meaning "therotic"/"theroy"...and so when you put it together it basically just means the study of werewolves...if you have any questions or comments reply back today please-i'd love to see what you've got to say. Isebella Wolf (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)BellaIsebella Wolf (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got that wrong. Try Lycos + Anthrope instead. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Very insulting

This is a derogatory article which talks about humans as if they aren't animals, and which calls anyone delusional who feels they are emotionally non-human so much so that they identify as such. Sure, obviously those saying they can p-shift most likely are, since doing that has yet to be seen or recorded by anyone, but not those who identify as non-human. This entire article needs an overhaul to make it less biased. Swiftpaw (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've rectified this by changing most of the occurrences of "animal" to "non-human". This article also suggests that there is something wrong with someone who feels and sees themselves as being physically non-human. There are some of us out here who would very much enjoy such a luxury. Swiftpaw (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have a gripe about this: "A patient behaves in a manner that resembles non-human behavior, for example crying, grumbling, or creeping." Humans don't do any of those things? Perhaps they were trying to give an example of what a "behavior" was, but that's just silly. I had already changed the "non-human" here from "animal", but it's still easy to see how incorrect and derogatory this sentence is. Assuming this article is about a condition where you see yourself physically as non-human (a condition in which we call m-shifting or p-shifting, the latter for those who really think it is real), the sentence should be changed to "Someone who behaves in a manner which is typically more specific to a non-human species." or something of that nature. Swiftpaw (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This article talks about an expert view. If your personal beliefs are different from that expert view and you are offended that we discuss that expert view, there's not much we can do for you. Wikipedia is not here to avoid offending people who are upset that their fringe beliefs are not endorsed. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more specific about my past critiques on this, I know it was too aggressive and lacked specific justifications. Encyclopedias should document things, including theories by psychologists and others who attempt to explain how the world works. As an example, the page on homosexuality is not called "Clinical Homosexuality". That is because "clinical" usually suggests "clinical mental disorder". This entire Wikipedia page is presenting it as a disorder, claiming that lycanthropy is a problem and those who have it, "patients", need to be cured. It reads just like articles on homosexuality would read from many years ago, but don't today. What is the difference between someone being different, and someone having a "medical condition"? The difference is one is okay or maybe even desirable, and the other usually refers to a difference that is not desirable. In order to be fair and balanced, this article should examine the potential negative, as well as the positive, effects of those feeling they are non-human emotionally/spiritually or physically. This is necessary because not everyone thinks this condition is a bad thing, so that fact needs mentioning here just as the condition of homosexuality needs it. Swiftpaw (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am insulted that someone would say that werewolves are actually crazed psychopaths. I, as a werewolf myself, hate when people think that all supernatural things can be proven with so-called "scientific evidence." If werewolves aren't real, humans aren't real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.6.79 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What, you actually turn into a wolf every full moon? Or do you just like to think of yourself as a wolf? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ranma Reference

Since this article only deals with delusional people, and not with actual lycans, the refrence to Ranma should be removed. Ranma could be considered to be "clinically delusional" in the way this argument presents it, since no main character in the series believes that were-people do not exist.                     ~Rayvn  11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Chilean case

In Chile, arround 1992, a real case was made public. Corina Lemunao is a woman that born with a mental desease in 1953, in Lonquimai. She was forced by her family (illiterate peasants, according to my memory) to live most of her life in a poultry house. When she was rescued, she belive she was another chicken, living naked and eating corn. The case was known as the "mujer gallina" (chicken woman). She later had two children, that were given in adoption. One of them later studied medicine in the US. [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.225.57 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the term, redux

I'm testing the waters to see if anyone is going to object to changing the article to reflect the origins of the term "lycanthropy" as given by a credible source. As I stated previously on this page: 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." [4]

I'd simply "be bold" and do it, but last time, to my surprise, someone objected, and I don't want to look like I'm trying to force my way onto this when there's been previous discussion. However, time has passed and I now see no reason for one person to hold up the statement of what is apparently well-established fact simply because he doesn't like my source, despite that source being considered reliable elsewhere on Wikipedia, on dictionary.com (also a reliable source), etc. So, if you are to object, you should go about it in a reasonable fashion. I don't plan on settling for a so-called "neutral" position again if possible, which was "neutral" only in the sense that it got passed the singular editor who was objecting to the proposed change, not in the NPOV sense. (This is hardly a political hot potato or similarly controversial subject!) -- Glynth (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical info

Including that info is completely synthesis. This is exactly the same as saying "Historical person X had disease Y", or "Fictional character A seems to suffer from syndrome B." If a reliable source (note that this would need to be a scientific/academic source had made such a claim, we could include a sentence that says, "Scholar X has said that the description of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is a manifestation of clinical lycanthropy" then it could be included. But we (Wikipedians) may never draw our own conclusions about what a primary source means. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not regard scientific/academic source as the only RS. Why is the source I provided not RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Clark_Kroeger? What the source I provided says “15-16 references the strange illness Clinical Lycanthropy” How does this not say that this passage is an early reference to Clinical Lycanthropy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the source (my google book's won't access it). Could you provide the exact quotation, please? I see that the author of the book (rather, the author of the commentary, not the Bible itself) does appear to be a legitimate Biblical scholar. If that is the case, and the quotation pans out, then it would actually be legitimate to have a sentence that said, "Biblical scholar Catherine Clark Kroeger believes that the description of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 refers to what is now called clinical lycanthropy". So it may be that we just need more info and a rephrase to include the claim.

As a side note, I've removed the rest of the pop culture section as well. None of that had any secondary sources--as always, including our own "diagnoses" is WP:OR. This is true whether the person in question is real or is fiction. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was probably my fault... Slatersteven, your edit summary said you were just undoing Qwyrxian's revision. He'd removed a completely unsourced statement, I didn't notice that you'd added a new reference when you undid it. --Jarandhel (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did provide the qoute, I will provode a fuller one “15-16 references the strange illness Clinical Lycanthropy (n which a person believes he is, or behaves like, an animal) occur in several latter texts.” page 1003 to 1004. A better line would be 'Catherine Clark Kroeger has writen that several biblical texts refer to King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 as a manifestation of clinical lycanthropy'.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, what's the Biblical Hebrew phrase for 'clinical lycanthropy'? It seems to me more likely that she wrote that Biblical descriptions of N.'s behavior are consistent with lycanthropy. —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So can we now restore my edit?Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now there's no Pop Culture section to restore it into. Qwyrxian did that, not me, but it apparently all suffered from having no RS making the connection to clinical lycanthropy. I'm not sure one example that does have a RS is sufficient to restore it... if we could get a few more, maybe? Though it might work better as the basis for starting a famous clinical lycanthropes section, really. The Bible as "pop-culture" always seemed a little odd to me... --Jarandhel (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the section title and cleaned up the grammar a little bit, but other than that I'm happy with the new version. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture section removed /mythology added / etc.

Frankly, I don't care about the Biblical quote much one way or another, other than I dispute the rationale for removing it it.

But deleting the entire pop culture section is ridiculous. It is not OR and not synthesis to note that characters in those works falsely believed they were animals. To say that they cannot be listed here without some source saying it was specifically an example of clinical lycanthropy is to deny what the word means. Synthesis means to put associated facts together to come to a new conclusion. It's not a new conclusion to say that the book or film is about the very thing the book or film is entirely 100% about.

And to take the pop culture section away and replace it to one in mythology is even more ridiculous, because in mythology the fantastic is real, so changing into an animal is more likely to be real and unworthy of comment and not at all clinical lycanthropy.

As far as sources used for the mythology info, bare links to a Google result is not appropriate. You must cite an actual author and publication and date. Google links break frequently (as indeed one is already broken for me) and do not give an encyclopedic-style source of information to follow when reading it.

Considering how bad and without any sort of Wikipedia-policy based reason all these edits have been, restoring back to last stable version. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And, per WP:BRD, two editors wished to keep the info, two editors wished to remove it, therefore since there was clearly no consensus to change it, it should stay at the original longstanding consensus condition. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Except WP:V and WP:OR are policies, and WP:BRD is merely a essay suggesting an editing process. It is absolutely forbidden to for us to draw our own conclusios about what is in a book or film. As far as I can tell, none of those books/films actually use the term "clinical lycanthropy", and thus saying characters in them have that disorder isn't saying "what the book or film is about"--it's a novel conclusion.

I do agree that the Google links are bad; I'll fix them within an hour or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do RS say the characters do?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: if the books/films themselves say the characters have CL, they can be included in a pop culture section. I'm not a fan of them, but I accept that others are, though I do think we should keep it to cases where the character and/or CL plays a major role in the story, so if it's a throwaway character, or a single episode of a long-running series, then it shouldn't be included. If the books/films themselves do not use the terminology, then we need the independent RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd make even the slightest effort to look into those fictional works you'd see that they belong here. Please do not edit out of sheer ignorance of the topic and then make demands about what other editors need to do to satisfy you. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:OR are policies, yes, but bizarre interpretations of them that go against standard usage of them are not policy. On top of that, edit warring against consensus is not justified just because you claim you have policy on your side when both sides say they have policy on their side. So, let me make it 100% clear: until you have a clear consensus you should not be making a new edit you know to be controversial. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yalls, I understand it's convenient to simply click the revert button, but it'd really be more constructive to edit out the wrong things and keep the good things. Please, no more reverts. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(I was wrong in my last edit summary; seems that episodes list is messed up. I'll fix it.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged all 3 of the film/movies as needing a citation. Said citation will need to explicitly use the phrase "clinical lycanthropy" or it will fail WP:V and WP:OR. Alternatively, if someone will verify, here, on the talk page, that the term "clinical lycanthropy" is used in the movie itself, I will AGF and remove the tag. If such sources are not added in a reasonable amount of time, I will remove those paragraphs. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

About the Mental episode, I haven't seen it myself but the show seems something akin to House MD -- I'm *guessing* they actually mentioned the diagnosis "clinical lycanthropy" inside the show. If they did, then we wouldn't need a reference for that, right? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this convince us the term was actually used in the show? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Removing the cn from that one now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Treatment?

It would be good if somebody knowledgeable could add treatment methods for such a condition.

I feel like I have this..

I may have this condition, ever since I was at a young age, I have had a special connection with cats even though most of my family is allergic to them. As I grew, I have started to act like a cat, and I am a therian too. I believe that i'm really the soul of a cat just in a human soul. I even feel like I was a cat in my past life. I have even attacked people before too, and have autism and ADHD Little Kitty Cat2 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend talking to some people on the r/therian discord if you're not there, they're equipped more or less to help you with this. Pigeonbloodblues (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Case examples

the case examples section reeks of tabloid style pop science, perhaps it should be restructured? i didn't want to make a drastic change without saying anything, i'll check on this periodically for a few weeks and if nobody responds ill just do it. Pigeonbloodblues (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder is Unrelated

I don’t believe there is any relevance to the topic to include “(also see Dissociative Identity Disorder)” under the Signs and Symptoms, and propose that note be removed. It is entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, and including that when discussing species identity disorder and species dysphoria is a gross mischaracterization of what DID is. Mystic Melodia (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)