Talk:Freak

There is a move discussion at Talk:Freaks#Requested move 12 May 2019 proposing that there is no primary topic for the plural which is currently about a film. Cr

Talk:Freak

"Freaks"

There is a move discussion at Talk:Freaks#Requested move 12 May 2019 proposing that there is no primary topic for the plural which is currently about a film. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Monster to see also list

@GenQuest: I added "monster" to the "See also" list and was reverted with a vague summary "not needed". I think the cultural concepts of freaks and monsters are closely related and often overlap, and there is value in linking one to the other. Arguments to the contrary? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Swpb: The word, Freaks, in this usage does not refer to monsters, the word is in reference to people. Human beings. People are not monsters. Any relation between the two are tenuous at best. I can see no value added using that word/link here in this particular article. GenQuest "scribble" 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Obviously they're not the same thing; if they were, they'd be the same article. That's not what "See also" means. I can read as well as anyone that this article is about humans. But there is a huge cultural association throughout history of deformed but otherwise perfectly natural humans with supernatural powers and phenomena. One could write a full, well-sourced section on that association, probably a whole article. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
"Supernatural powers and phenomena"? That doesn't equate to monsters either. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with GenQuest. There is no strong connection between the two terms. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Definition

Should this entry not say that it was a term used historically to refer to these individuals, rather than it simply being what they are?

I notice that the entry is locked from being edited. 220.235.255.175 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

intro sentence improvement suggestion

I'm wondering if we might want to add "complex and sometimes controversial" as a qualifier in the first sentence, as otherwise, it seems to almost imply that this is the proper term. ~2026-25865-19 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.