Talk:Succubus

Night-Mare

Oliver Sachs' book Hallucinations contains material that is relevant to this and incubus. He emphasises that the term nightmare was originally night-mare, as in a mythical female creature who visited and sat on unsuspecting people at night. This again links in with the discussion about sleep paralysis and possible scientific explanations for this mythology, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.183.53 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant Picture

I fail to see what the picture has to do with the topic...looks like someone decided to be funny and put a picture of a friend up. I'm removing it until we find a better one. Dargueta (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Succubi in fantasy role-playing games

Succubi often feature in fantasy role-playing games. In Dungeons & Dragons succubi are numerous tanar'ri demons, many under the command of the Abyssal Lord Graz'zt. Succubi are featured prominently in the Planescape games, and in D&D the female child of a succubus and a human is traditionally called an "Alu-demon" and the male child a "Cambion". Also, the offspring of an alu-demon or cambion's union with a human is known as a tiefling. - -They are also fquently seen in the Castlevania video game series as enemies. Succubi are also featured in several Blizzard Entertainment games, such as Diablo and World of Warcraft. Another popular succubus is Morrigan Aensland from the Darkstalkers series, also appearing in many of other Capcom fighting games. Another succubus, Lilith, later made an appearance in Darkstalkers 3 - Jedah's Damnation. Succubi also appeared in the Starship Titanic game, although not intended as a demonic figure.

Suggested for editing and reinsertion under a new heading. --Tznkai 22:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Succubus is an upcoming movie from Blood Ceremony Films. When it is finished, I will add an article about it in Succubus (movie). Adding an article now would elicit a response about Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Succubus picture

I'm extremely disappointed to see that my picture of the Succubus was removed. I find that to be in incredibly bad taste. I can see that there is a long established argument over game material which is what my picture was of...the World of Warcraft Succubus. Regardless of what you think should go in this topic, the game's character is called a "succubus" and if someone made a separate article for every type of succubus out there, there would be hundreds of different articles. But the viewer that is interested in the word succubus and looks it up to see what it means, having varying types of Succubi in one article is efficient and all the materials are noteworthy and important to wikipedia users like myself. Don't take it upon yourself to determine what information is worthy of this encyclopedia. In fact, take into consideration that this particular encyclopedia's main purpose is to encompass all aspects, all points of view, and all information. So get off your nest egg and take a break. -- Boiseshutterbug

IMHO you forgot to sign off with IMHO. Jclerman 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

can you try to do the picture again 2603:6011:3100:4D5C:5DC:EE7:174D:10C1 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of information

DreamGuy I do not see why you keep removing the information about the succubus in modern games. Why is it "non-notable"? Surely wikipedia is a place where someone can research a modern cultural evolution of legendary creatures? Better to include relevent information at a minimal level but at least with links to appropriate off-site articles, than to not mention them at all. Just because something is not relevent to you does not make it irrelevent to the world.

And please get your facts straight, I didn't simply revert back to the last edit with that information in - I reverted their removal, by re-adding them into the article, combining it with the changes made in between. -Erolos 14:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article are not places to list every bit of trivia even minorly related to a topic. This is not an article on video game characters or roleplaying games, and we can't just fill up all the articles about mythological beings with pointless details about games. If you want to make a separate article about examples of demonic creatures in videogames, or roleplaying games, or whatever, make it. What I object to is all the nonsensical sub-trivia about bad fiction that in another couple of years nobody will remember or care about that people keep adding to pages about real life beliefs. Further, I see from your list of contributions that this is not a new concept for you, as people have erased your changes to other articles for exactly the same reason. You need to start working with how encyclopedias work and not just keep trying to push your little gaming things onto everything. DreamGuy 17:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy, if you took your time to look at other articles in Wikipedia, you'd notice this isn't your ordinary encyclopedia. It talks about more than people are used to. Things people wouldn't dream of seeing in a regular encyclopedia. If you take a look around, you'll find a large number of other articles with the exact same situation on them. Here, it's just normal. It's considered as valid as the central subject of the article itself. Whether the information you insist of removing is "nonsensical", "bad fiction", "minorly related", or something that "nobody will remember or care about", that only reflects your own personal beliefs. Wikipedia is against addition of point-of-view oriented ideas, or the resulting removal of them. They should be as neutral as possible (since it's impossible to be essentially neutral). Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be anyone sharing those ideas of making this article "as clean of 'outlandish' info as possible". And by the way, it's very interesting to see you saying "you can't just go back to a version from long ago ignoring other changes since then", since it was yourself who removed that info, at that time.--Kaonashi 17:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw something nice. It's the way you're attacking that member for supposedly doing what he's doing here, while it seems like you enjoy spending a good share of your time removing your so called "cruftiness" from Wikipedia's articles. Translating, you've been removing every single bit of information considered by you as "non-notable" "unrelated", "unimportant", something that "makes no sense", etc. Seems like you're trying to turn this encyclopedia into your own idea of an encyclopedia. Well, bad news is that you ain't working alone here. If you haven't noticed that yet, you're about to.--Kaonashi 17:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I would tend to agree with DreamGuy. Some of the trivia is getting a bit much. Its not so bad when they are footnotes to a well written article, but if the fan-cruft accounts for more than 25% of the article it becomes a bit of a problem. A better course of action might be to more the deleted material to the talk page until there is sufficient article to balance it. I would have thought there was more genuine material to usefully expand this article. -- Solipsist 17:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with how I use wikipedia, actually, thank you. I once-upon-a-time contributed frequently to articles that POV-pushers like yourself call "notable" articles. However I could no longer deal with these egotistical editors who seemed to think that, interpreting the rules in generously selfish ways (doesn't life have a tradition of people who seem to think the best way to work their own agendas is to interpret a governing text as they see fit?), and pushing their own views of how the wikipedia should be structured. Fed up with the complete American conservative elite that disregarded the importance of other people's edits I retreated to my own favourite niche of the wikipedia—information pertaining to the Forgotten Realms/Dungeons & Dragons. And here I stay, unlike other people, valuing the constructive edits of others. I do not however, value people removing information because of their personal POV, because the entire point of wikipedia is the spread of knowledge. Now I'm hoping that all that information will prevent you from incorrectly assuming in future that you know me and my aims. The fact that you don't value my "little gaming things" is irrelevent. Surprisingly, wikipedia, like the world, does not revolve around User:DreamGuy.

To the article at hand: I'd be interested to hear the finer points of your obviously strongly held belief that mythology and fiction are somehow not interrelated. Explain it to me. In the mean time, I believe that this article reflects, under different headers, both the sparse information we have about medieval perceptions of the succubus, and the representations it has in the modern world. Of coursem, hopefully, both will be expanded and added to, to help further general knowledge on the subject. Considering neither is particularly lengthy I think we can, for the moment, rule out creating seperate articles, since they are divided (oh-so-importantly, you seem to think) by different headings and still remain linked to the same basis. -Erolos 21:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mythology and folklore are related in that fiction is often based upon myths, but that's so obvious that it isn't even notable. And if you think we have "sparse" information about the actual beliefs about succubi and try to use that as an excuse for having more on fiction than on the actual topic, you are just showing how ignorant you are about the actual topic. And you are also completely off your rocker to try to claim that "the American conservative elite" removes your changes... I am in no way a conservative, I just hold reference works to a higher standard than a bunch if (presumably) kids who have no actual knowledge worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia going around adding trivial references to some k3wL video game as if it were useful information. DreamGuy 17:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The only difference between mythology/folklore and fiction as we know is that the former was once believed to be real. Besides that, it's the same. Human creations. I have to tell you, though, to keep your comments diplomatic. You're borderline Wikiquette there. I guess I don't have to tell why. This warning is being given to you by an admin. Keep it in mind.

Another thing to notice is that, if there's as much "fictional-non-mythological" info on the article as there is about the "original subject" itself, it's because the demand for both is the same. It's because the demand is equivalent. Removing any of them under the excuse that its merits aren't worthy, only shows how much one wants to make an article just the way they want.

As for the revert war, the article will get a disputed tag, and it'll stay there until more people find this talk page, get in touch with this situation, and comment. Only after that an action shall be taken. By the way, do not remove that tag. That's another advice.--Kaonashi 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All Mythology has a core of truth in it, hence why it was believed to be real (even if most of it was superstition). Fiction is created from mythology for entertainment. That is a clear difference as you can see. The Unbeholden (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Off my rocker"? Amongst other things I think you need to learn to read without self-centred-ly placing yourself in the context of what someone else writes. I wasn't referring to you when speaking of the editors who stopped me from contributing to the wikipedia at large. Quite the opposite—you are the first person to insult me over my inoffensive contributions to something as, as you yourself claim, "trivial" as D&D.

Mythology and fiction are merely the same thing from different eras. Fiction, unlike mythology, has had the advantage of mass media to distribute it, whilst mythology had only oral tradition. Both, however, remain valuable in understanding the imaginations of humans, and your claim that fiction will be forgotten in a couple of years time is surely the point—mythology would equally have been forgotten had it not eventually been transcribed to text. That is what wikipedia is about, preserving knowledge that could otherwise be lost. You are simply stuck in a world where only the past has any significance.

Unless you radically come up with a change of stance I think it is both obvious you have no concept of politeness or compromise, and thus, the article should remain as is, under the Wikipedia rules for consensus, even if we are discounting the contribution of an admin. For your own sake, though, I'd advise you in future to try using wikipedia with a little more consideration for mindsets other than your own. -Erolos 18:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, can this really be worth a revert war? Lets leave the disputed passage alone for a while until we can agree what to do. A couple more days with the info in or out won't make much difference. Its not like there is anything controversially wrong here, it is just a matter of emphasis.

I suspect the solution here is to generally expand the article. I was thinking that the article could do with a better lead illustration to show the common impression of what a succubus should look like. I expected I would be able to find a 19th century painting or other period illustration, but a Google search only brought up modern fantasy/game related images - which would all be copyright, but perhaps also suggests that the concept of the succubus has more influence today than it ever has in the past.

So here are some other questions to answer;

1. Does a succubus have to have wings - my impression is 'yes' but they can initially be hidden.
2. How about a tail.
3. When/where does the idea of a succubus originate - the article mentions numerous related names from other cultures, which suggests that the idea must have appeared much earlier than the middle ages in order to have time to spread.
4. Is there any connection with Greek sirens

That's enough for the moment. -- Solipsist 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why the disputed text should be removed from the article. It doesn't detract from the "factual accuracy" of the article at all, and seems to be in the same vein as almost all other Wikipedia articles, with more information than would be expected from another encyclopedia. The anti-elitist spirit of Wikipedia is inherent to its nature, and excluding the disputed information on the grounds that it involves gaming sub-culture would be unsound. - King Nine 19:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At this point I just have to call bullshit, because you don't know what you are talking about. "Mythology and fiction are merely the same thing from different eras." is absolutely false. Fiction is created specifically to be entertainment and known to be false. Mythology is actual religious beliefs of people. They are created in completely different ways, for completely different uses, with completely different meanings. For you to equate the beliefs the people had for thousands of years to some pathetic video game character created based upon what someone thinks he maybe heard about succubi from some other game is just ridiculous. You can yammer all you want, but all you do is prove that you should not in any way, shape or form make any changes to an article about mythology and legends. Go create a succubus fiction article if you want, but you are completely incapable of handling an article about nonfiction. DreamGuy 20:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, I considered making the same point myself (the distinction is quite nicely described in the article on fiction - the key difference being that fiction is always known to be make believe, whilst mythology is thought once to be true by a significant number of people) however, I didn't think it would help much in diffusing an unnecessary revert war. There is some cross-over in that the best fiction draws strength from resonant ideas of mythology (memes almost). J. R. R. Tolkien was particularly good at this - he even invented languages which seem authentic because they are based on the linguistic rules of real languages.

DreamGuy and Erolos, can you both take a moment to take stock. Disagreements are seldom resolved by polarising positions. DreamGuy consider the analogous article at vampire which has a mythological element but is largely a fictional creation of the 19th century - the article has an extensive list of books, films and computer games which feature vampires without unbalancing the article too much. Erolos consider which items in the 'modern fiction' section (undeleted version) are truely relevant. We should probably include books, films and games in which a Succubus is a principle character or theme, but not those which just happen to contain a Succubus amoungst a range of other mythological creatures. -- Solipsist 21:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did try and find a compromise - that's why I opened up communication in the first place. But a mixture of personal attacks and inability to listen to others has shown DreamGuy to be a childish POV-warrior, and there is rarely much that will get through to that kind of person. I am aware that the inclusion of all references to a succubus in the multitude of games in the universe is impossible and simply unhelpful, bogging the article down. That is why I felt that the references currently in the modern fiction section were concise and appropraite (just to make a point—only two sentences in those paragraphs were actually written by me, I am simply defending the contributions others have made). If you can suggest any particular bit that would need alteration or removing we should look into it.

In the mean time, I await an admin to deal with the vandalism that DreamGuy perpetuates by constantly reverting the article against the wikipedia's rules for consensus. If you will stop calling what I say bullshit, then this is directed at you DreamGuy:

• On that same token you are completely incapable of handling an article on non-fiction. I have made my non-fiction contributions to wikipedia, including all the wikipedia's information on the mythology of an entire people.
• Yes the information in this article minus the modern fiction section is "sparse" (see similar at werewolf), hence why it is a stub. The whole point of stubs is to fill them up with relevenet information. Instead of returning it to stub form let's try and find a way of compromising. -Erolos 12:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well there are already two admins involved in this discussion, and so far its only the critisms escalating towards personal attacks which might have persuaded me to act. The various page reverts are unhelpful, but it is always best to seek agreement on disputes - otherwise people tend to just go away upset, which seldom results in a better encyclopedia. And building a better encyclopedia is the reason most of us are here.

I'm afraid I can't comment on the appropriateness of any of the links in the modern fiction section. I don't know anything of the games and books mentioned. (Not quite true, I do recognise 'Dungeons & Dragons' but I don't recall a Succubus having any special significance there). The parallel section on Werewolf is interesting - I thought it was quite informative in discussing the changing role of werewolves in fiction (the move into environmentalism was news to me). I was also quite taken with some of the references which were not mentioned (the film 'Teenwolf' for example, where the central character is a werewolf, but it adds nothing to the genre). Even An American Werewolf in London is only mentioned in the context of it not being as significant as the much earlier (unrelated) film with a similar title. (Bonus aside, whilst checking into this I was also thinking that Michael Jackson's Thriller (song) wasn't mentioned, but more importantly that article failed to mention the very relevant connection between the Thriller video and Landis's Werewolf film, which I've now fixed.)

I don't recognise the two video games mentioned, but it looks like they both involve the player taking the role of a werewolf.

In contrast the section here reads like a list a games which include a succubus at some point. That might not be the case, as I say I don't know the games in question, but the text doesn't give me much context as to why any of these references should be interesting. That's not necessarily bad, but it is clearly less informative. -- Solipsist 08:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took my time to put your comments in order of posting, so that other people won't get confused. By the way, yes, I agree with the fact that fiction was created for the entertaining of people, while myths weren't. I just thought it was a little bit obvious, so it didn't seem any good to me in terms of argumentation. Doesn't differ what's worth having in the article, from what isn't. I still think a good way of seeing this situation is demand. That's the word people must have in mind. I will ask you both to stop reverting the articles to the versions you like better, as well. That is good for nothing, besides for the sake of "having the last word". It'll just make the article look more unstable than it already is. It this keeps going like this, the page will be protected. If you have any good content to add, you're free to do so. But please refrain from reverting. --Kaonashi 02:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertianty!" Er, speaking as someone who was looking here, I suggest we mention stuff where succubi appeared, but only as central characters, i.e. Krakow, or maybe that one episode of South Park. I'm not sure whether characters in fighting games like Darkstalkers (Morrigan Aensland, Lilith Aensland) count as "central", but ... Yar Kramer 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy, the disputed tag was put by me on that article because... guess what. The content is disputed! Who'd know. Jokes apart, it was a very bad idea removing that tag, for whatever reason you could ever come up with. Also because you're one of the parts involved in the dispute. So, if you do that again, you will be punished. This is your final warning.--Kaonashi 01:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. The article is clearly still disputed. -- Solipsist 08:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two should read what the actual tag says: It's for factual disputes only, meaning claims that information on the page are wrong. Nobody has pointed out any claims that the article is wrong, so the tag absolutely and undeniably does not belong. DreamGuy 20:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I know, but you've been around long enough to know it actually gets used in cases of general disputes, so it probably wasn't the best idea to remove it without discussion. -- Solipsist 21:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is complete nonsense. It does not get used unless there is a FACTUAL dispute with the article. There are other more appropriate tags if you want other kinds of disputes. At this point an ADMIN has gone in and placed a FALSE TAG on this page, violating policy, and then LOCKED IT HIMSELF AFTERWARDS. This is a CLEAR VIOLATION of Wikipedia policy that admins cannot lock pages after they themselves jump in to make POV changes. That person ought to be removed as admin, because there's no doubt that what he did was completely wrong. DreamGuy 22:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well? I suppose you have a better idea what dispute tag to put here? And I feel that people would be more open to your point of view if you weren't as insulting. --Yar Kramer 23:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is absolute and undeniable is the fact that this article is being disputed regarding its content. People are debating as to whether its content is worth staying there or not. And not only that. They're also reverting the page like mad, making its content even more unreliable. So, if even after all this you still insist on that excuse (which is nothing else than a way of leaving the page in the version you want, without any apparent indication that the content IS disputed), listen to the man up there. Wikipedia doesn't have any better tags for this kind of situation. This is the one used in this kind of situation, so that's why it is used and it'll keep being used, even against your will.

Regarding my previous promise, no, I'm not punishing you. Maybe I should, but I bark a lot, you know. And since things here in Wikipedia run based in the old "forgive a lot, punish only as the last measure", I'm not gonna do anything... now. Besides protecting the page, of course. The page shall stay protected until things cool down, and until a real consensus is reached. That might take a while, which is bad, since protection of pages is considered bad to Wikipedia, since it prevents users from adding their contributions to the articles, but in this case, there weren't many good choices. Anyway, if even after the page loses its protection status you decide to act by yourself without hearing other users, I won't be able to contain the course of things. That is another warning. You got plenty now.--Kaonashi 01:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've created a new article with the 'disputed content' under Succubus (video games). I would be grateful if this article could be linked from the disputed article by an admin.

As for the dispute over the volume of information about different subjects under the topic of Succubi; perhaps if someone with good knowledge about succubi could expand the main topic.

DreamGuy; no offence, but Wikipedia never got where it is today by removing sections of articles. True, if the section is irrelevant, it does not belong there, but I'd say that representations of Succubi in video games is somewhat relevant. If you feel that it is too large a part of the article, then why not expand it to include references to Succubi in, for instance, literature (ancient and modern), as well as other subjects? That way, the video games section would not be such a large part of the article, and its 'irrelevancy' would be less pronounced (as other 'irrelevant' subjects would counterbalance it).

And finally, concerning articles with PoVs in them; I think they can be fine if the PoV is relevant and represented fairly (i.e. balanced against the PoVs of others). For instance, it would be pointless to include whether a video game 'sucked' or 'ruled', as that is a moot point. However, if it were representing the beliefs of a certain culture or religion, then I would consider it acceptable. --Sasuke Sarutobi

This is ridiculous. Consensus for the inclusion in the article has not been reached but we are jumping the gun and creating a brand new article anyway? Does nobody read Wikipedia guidelines? Does nobody want to discuss compromises and ways to make the wikipedia articles the best for everyone, except me? Or will everyone keep reverting, creating new articles and adding/removing dispute tags at will? -Erolos 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's removing any tags from this article anymore. Not until this is resolved. Now, creating another article while that hasn't happened yet was a bad idea as well. While the idea is constructive, the debate is still going on. We hadn't heard your opinions before, Sasuke. Sure, we can see you were bold there, but my opinion is that a decision should be made first, before taking an action. That's the exact opposed of what DreamGuy's been doing, by the way. Anyhow, I really don't know. I just don't know if an article based on succubi from video games alone is worth existing here. It doesn't really look small to me, but I still think all that content could coexist within this article. There isn't anything wrong on that. I hope more people will get here to discuss.--Kaonashi 18:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vote against the Succubus (video games) article. If anywhere, it belongs in this article, albeit more than likely in "less than stub" capacity. But that's just me, I'm open to suggestions (not that I'd be able to make much of a difference). Yar Kramer 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mister DreamGuy, if you think what I'm doing something wrong and against Wikipedia's guidelines here, go ahead and finger me. Do that. I'm giving my wrists to your cuffs. "CLEAR VIOLATION", you say? That's awesome. Go and finger me. Let's see what happens. Now, you're sick of admins violating rules, eh? If we were violating rules, instead of trying to solve things with talking (as we did at a first moment, unlike you) we'd never become admins. And most importantly, if we made it to this status, we wouldn't be able to sustain it, don't you think? My opinion is that you're frustrated with that fact that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of your dreams, and that your efforts on turning it into your own playground have gone down the drain.

I apologize to all the others. This discussion shouldn't have turned into a "finger pointing" party. It's just that sometimes I can't hold it.--Kaonashi 23:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's okay. I'm surprised I didn't start throwing insults first. I mean, like, there's so many things I haven't said here, largely because most of them are rude and insulting. DreamGuy, on the other hand, has been flinging insults towards every single person who's had an opposite view from him since the start. And all over a single paragraph that mentioned some games succubi are in.

... and I like how this is the most significant controversial issue I'm involved in recently. ;) --Yar Kramer 01:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article, might be the way to proceed, although I'm not sure that (video games) is the best additional tag. The more I look at it, the more it seems that the real problem is the Dungeon and Dragons material. Would I be right in thinking that the discussion about tanar'ri demons and the like isn't actually based on anything in the real world and is purely game mechanics. If so, I believe there is an established practice of splitting this information into separate articles (similarly for Pokemon characters and Star Trek material). This can be seen by looking through the entries at Category:Dungeons & Dragons and its subcats. As a concrete example, Sphinx (fantasy) is separated from Sphinx although it appears to have happened fairly recently. Erolos, as you were a party to that split, I'm surprised you didn't mention it. -- Solipsist 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For information, I've now opened this up to WP:RFC. -- Solipsist 16:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that the video game section is something that needs to be augmented immediately after it is reincluded (since, face it, it will be ;-)). The text of the video-game-succubi just appears as a quick "here they are, do your own research" type of one-off, which doesn't really uphold the spirit of Wikipedia. Perhaps the text should be improved upon, describing the classical succubi of folklore and mythology and illustrating the various aspects of succubi in the different games and modern entertainment culture. (For instance, succubi in Nethack are dangerous pests with way too many hormones for their own good — basically supercharged nymphs — while the succubus in South Park is a lethal monster after she sheds her "human skin".) --Jtgibson 08:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes to includes information from Succubus (video games) in this article

For:

• Erolos
  • I decided that since some of the obstinance seemed to have seeped out of this I'd try and structure decisions coherenetly so we can move on. If this doesn't provide consensus we can vote on another way of dealing with this, but at the moment this is looking like the most popular option. Add yourself as you want.
• --Kaonashi 23:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's a place for that kind of info, it's here. That's my opinion. The rest of it can be seen in the discussion up there. The word that sums everything is "demand". Also, remember Wikipedia is not an ordinary encyclopedia. I think that's what people should have in mind.
• Yar Kramer
• King Nine
• Silence 20:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Perfectly good information. If the main worry is that it unbalances the article, then expand the rest of the page rather than deleting chunks that will be of use later!
• Kornable
  • I'm not entirely sure about if I can vote or not... not being a user but as a person who loves wikipedia and often browses, I really liked the reference to computer games having even played some, and i feel that almost any information like that is useful.

Against:

• Fanwankery is trying to take over this encyclopedia. People with nothing of substance to contribute to this project shouldn't even be allowed to vote. DreamGuy 22:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• --Stradlater 15:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The information that you wish to place in the article is overwhelming, even to one who has a knowledge of the references you link to and wish to include. It takes drastic attention away from the actual article itself (mythology etc). Instead of being a supplement, it is the article.
• The info is so important and necessary that warants a full chapter in a video games article. Shift it there, please. Jclerman 16:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Other:

• Oh for the love of God, no voting! Snowspinner 14:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Reinclusion of information

According to the vote above, it seems to me like there is a clear consensus to re-include the information as it was. I would be greatful if an admin could re-add the information and/or unlock the article. -Erolos 02:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This votation was started nine days ago. 25 edits were made on this page since that date, and so far, 5 users voted to have this information back in the article, while 2 voted against it. It does look like a consensus, and no other votes were added for quite a while, even after this page was pointed to RFC. The information will be returned to the article and it'll lose its protection, as well as the tags. If there are any opinions regarding this, now is the time.--Kaonashi 23:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure the vote was the best way to handle this, but no-one else is making a case for keeping the article split, and we are unlikely to see any more input from the RFC. -- Solipsist 05:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright. The votation is over the the page was unprotected (not by me, by the way). The disputed tag is gone, and the article was reverted to a previous version. Further discussion about this can be carried here.--Kaonashi 16:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment on this debacle

A couple of notes. First of all, splitting an article this short is just silly. Second of all, considering that video games and roleplaying games make up a very large portion of the contemporary mythic/fantasy writing that goes on, making it a necessary last step in telling the history of a fantasy concept. I'd be shocked if most succubi that appear in media today are not in gaming - that fact thus seems relevent to me, just as it would if most succubi appeared in lawn maintenance or carpentry. Which is to say, the fact that it is gaming content is immaterial - what's material is that it's the most significant succubus-related content of the last 20 years or so. Snowspinner 15:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I would prefer to see a well handled section on the modern development of the concept, as discussed for the parallel case of werewolf. I don't think DreamGuy's solution of deleting most of the section was the best option, and Sasuke Sarutobi split was probably premature.

However, if the inclusion of the fantasy material here is going to prevent people from expanding the mythological meaning, then a split might be the best option. Just as has happened on other articles.

DreamGuy's responses in this dispute are certainly some way short of Wikiquette, but I've taken the trouble to look over his contributions. Several months ago, I see many additions and corrections on mythological subjects which seem far better researched than average. I also see examples of him fighting the same battles again and again, and frankly I'm not surprised that he has now got a short fuse. That said Wikiquette is an important part of editing here and we can't accept personal attacks. -- Solipsist 16:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how information on current usage prevents expansion on the mythological meaning. We could perhaps add a small section and put a section stub tag in to highlight that we want expansion on this? Snowspinner 16:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[multiple edit conflicts] Currently, this is a reletively short article. There is no particularly good reason for a split here. When articles begins to fill up, splits are performed where nessesary, often with a small section heading like:

== Succubus in video games ==

''Main article: [[Succubus (video games)]].''

I guess I'm not sure what the actual dispute is, (and yes, I've read through the talk page). func(talk) 16:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The actul dispute is that DreamGuy removed a paragraph from the article about succubi in games because it somehow wasn't "relevant," and most other people think that yes it is. --Yar Kramer 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, generally, the general standard for mythological creatures/concepts/etc. is to create a separate article called "(name) in popular culture". (example Ragnarök in popular culture, Kraken in popular culture, Norse mythology in popular culture, etc.) Would this perhaps be a better compromise?--Crazysunshine 03:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you were to include every fanboy detail about videogames etc... in an article about Succubi then I think we'd have to let them add random game/cartoon/movie trivia to every other article on wikipedia. I don't want my kid to write an article on WOW. 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Wow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.26.70 (talk)

needed material

If this ever gets resolved, the article could also use some mroe information on what happened between the 16th century and 1970... the succubus in literature, etc. I know Balzac wrote a short story The Succubus... the changing image of the creature would certainly be an encyclopedic subject. -FZ 16:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And that's the sort of stuff people OUGHt to be contributing instead of frothing about what is altready in the article. Add what you can, I'll research it via google now, having never heard of it now. And this will be resolved - one way or another - when the five days established for consensus are up. -Erolos 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where do you have some idea that a five day poll establishes consensus? Snowspinner 00:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator"

This was stated to me by an Admin, so unless admin have a habit of making things up, I'm guessing it can be found somewhere in the rules, though I'll be blown if I can find it. Still it seemed like a sensible convention to me. -Erolos 00:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for this discussion and succubi

Nothing at all against those that do not see a point to including most modern references to pop culture surrounding Succubi/Incubi, however, without these references mentioned at least via external links, doesn't it tend to leave a person questioning just what it is that the information presented to them has done as far as an impact on society? Not that I'm necessarily the smartest cookie in the bin, however, I know that including a link here or that referencing "Castlevania: Symphony of the Night" or "Dracula X" (both games produced by Konami) shouldn't cause any major problems as they are purely just for the sake of reference. If it is that bothersome to you guys perhaps then just mentioning the external link(s) in one's bibliography or footnotes. Just so long as it can be further researched as that grants an ability for further research without it taking up time from what little information can be considered factual on the topic of Succubi (Since most work on the subject of succubi, incubi, demons, devils, etc... is generally presented in a fictional/fanciful method, although some do try to make case studies of them in a non-fictional manner, some drawing on somethings that can be studied in repeatable manners, most just based on "old wive's tales", lore, legend, and myth).

I hope I haven't taken away from the main subject of this discussion however, it does seem rather foolish that you'd rather argue over which PoV is proper on this instead of simply trying to collect your ideas into one pot and present them all as possible answers on this since for the most part everything believed about the creature known as the succubus is purely fiction.

As for references to Succubi, could someone please post as many links as they have on the topic of succubi? Preferably relating to Images, theories, film, books, electronic entertainment/media, and any other archievable information relating to them.

RfC

This article was listed on on wp:rfc five days ago - is one still wanted, or can I de-list it? Dan100 (Talk) 20:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we have as much comment as we are going to -- Solipsist 05:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection instated ten days ago. You are encouraged to respect the three-revert rule and strive to resolve disputes if necessary. JRM · Talk 09:11, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Regarding other information

I think I'll try and look for some other information on succubi, see if I can't find any more information that isn't from modern media, maybe get in some external links, too. --Yar Kramer 02:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if this will show up on the board for viewing, but I sure hope it does. I use wikipedia constantly for research, and value this reference material for it's contributors and it's freestyle formatting.

I did a search for succubus and was so very disappointed at the lack of balance in the article. As a university student, I need to find a good balance of information, and did not find that in this article.

Gaming is an important part of our culture, I value its contributions to our world, but I also need historical and literary data that forms the premise behind such words. I believe the word succubus should first be prefaced with its beginnings, the origins, then it can branch out into its modern usage and place in our society and other societies.

This is the balance, without balance Wikipedia becomes nothing more than a crapshoot, a Google search. I know that Wikipedia is much more than that. These articles do have to have some start however, and for that the original author should be commended, not attacked, for starting the thread for succubus. But now it needs serious expansion.

I will conduct some research, and see if maybe I have what it takes to submit something of use. I value the hardowork you all seem to be doing here. Thank you so much for your patience and consideration on behalf of internet users, who could not do without you!!66.212.206.45 15:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Tamatahead--66.212.206.45 15:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I should work on this, too ... --Yar Kramer 16:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding addition of erotic stories

Succubi are erotic by nature. The subtitle spoke of succubi in fiction, and I thought it was relevant. Can we put this to a vote? Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not - I'm all for inclusion of erotic stories, but I see no particular evidence or way of determining that those particular erotic stories are "most notable" or anything, nor do I see any evidence that the site they came from is especially notable. Without those things, the debate on including erotic content seems to me beside the point. Phil Sandifer 21:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, I suppose. But if we talk about erotic books that are published and sold for money, I'm not sure why we can't talk about erotica published on the Internet for free as well. Don't they have an impact on us as well? Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure - but you still need to show verifiability for the claims, and that they're not trivia. I mean, if we included every piece of information about erotic stories, the article would be insanely long. So why those three stories? Phil Sandifer 22:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Erotic Mind Control Stories Archive is an established website in ASSTR and has been since about 1991. The community is localized, unified and does not show the signs of dissolving that most long-term erotic communities do. There's a collective consciousness established among readers about certain characters and terms that have become synonymous with erotic mind control (ie. Corelle d'Amber of the "Ancients" saga). If this is not relevant now, then when? Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes but how is that relevant about succubi in particular? I mean, if there was an entry about MCStories.com, it might be noteworthy to mention it there, but ... --Yar Kramer 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright... I concede the point. Thanks for being rational with me. :) Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"In modern times" section largely removed

This huge section added by anonymous IPS is completely uncited and without references, and a lot of it does not to conform to NPOV. If the people who added it or other would care to back up its inclusion and discuss the sources and validity, then its reintroduction (perhaps partial) could happen, but for the moment I'll leave the removed text here: -Erolos 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people in modern times believe that they are being attacked by a succubus in their sleep. Typically, the person being attacked is a man who reports having an erotic dream involving sex with a demon-like woman sometimes ending with the man having an orgasm during sleep. Sometimes the sex act is unwanted, in this case the attacked person will usually seek out spirtual intervention with a form of spiritual warfare. In other cases the sex act was enjoyed and some men seek out ways to recreate the experience. The origin of these dreams are debated, usually among religious lines, some believe that succubi are demons and need to be fought with the full power of that religion's faith (popular among Evangelical Christians, and other religious conservatives), other people believe that they are communicating with a higher being among an astral plane of some sort (New Age, Paganism), and some people believe that it is nothing more than a wet dream combined with erotic imagery.

The woman can have a variety of appearances. Sometimes the woman appears to be like someone the man knows (for example: a coworker), or can take the form of an erotic fantasy the man had (a leather clad warrior woman, for example). Sometimes the woman may appear completely human, at other times the woman will have any combination of traditional demonic characteristics such as fangs, wings, a tail, and other traits. Some men report that the woman was highly detailed and comparable to a real woman, while others report that the woman had incomplete details (example: the succubus had breasts, but no nipples).

If one does a search on succubi there will be several sites that pop up, some will be Spiritual Warfare sites (these tend to be affiliated with Christianity), some will be affiliated with New Age religions (these tend to be a bit more tolerant of succubi then the Spiritual Warfare sites), and inevitably there will be sites explaining how the succubus was just an excuse made to explain erotic wet dreams men would sometimes have.

Some conservative Christians are likely to assert that the succubus is a demon. This demon is said to have been sent to lead the man into a state of sin. These Christians believe that the succubus causes men to commit lust and further tempt them to sin. While methods may vary, the majority of solutions to get rid of a succubus these Chrisitans would reccomend are that the affected man spend time in prayer, repent of any prior lustful activities (such as viewing pornography or masturbation), spend more time in Bible study, order demons to leave him in the name of Jesus, discuss the incident with a Pastor/Priest, and that the man get involved with a local Church that believes in Spiritual Warfare.

Some people, believe that the succubus is a made up myth, made up in a time of ignorance. They believe that the succubus is an attempt to explain wet dreams. These skeptics give various reasons for this belief. One, is that this is just the brain exploring sexual fantasies that the brain knows cannot occur in real life. This explanation coincides with the example of the succubus looking like a coworker, in that example the religious man may have a degree of attraction to that coworker but knows that he cannot openly act upon that attraction, thus causing the brain to try to relieve some of its repressed desires during a time where the man may have little control such as in his dreams. Another example from skeptics, the succubus was used as an excuse to arrest women on false charges of witchcraft. It was difficult to deny this spectral evidence (evidence from dreams is part of this) in a court since it was a situation where it was a man's word against that of a woman's.

Removal of information... again

It seems an anonymous IP removed a lot of the contexts of modern times from this article without explanation, earlier in the year, and it was not reversed.

Also, Gtrmp, your relocation of much of the information to Succubi in fiction might well be appropriate, but you have not discussed it or even provided a reason, and to me it seems clumsy. Especially considering succubi are essentially derived from fiction, and since the article including these was not that long anyway, I continue to think it would be better served in this article, at the moment.

If I don't get a response, I will revert it. -Kez 00:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I support your proposed revert. —Nightstallion (?) 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Succubus: A woman that lives in the United Kingdom in the city of Leeds (flip412 2006)

Disambiguation

From the header at the top of the article, it would appear the word "succubus" can be applied to a wide enough range of topics that it might benefit from a disambiguation page. Just a thought. - guest (Trauma)

I agree completely. There needs to be some reorganization on this page, in a bad way.

poem removal

I removed the poem "My Waking Dreamsleep" because it was not sourced and listed under etymology where it didn't belong (and poorly formatted.) If someone wants to reinclude a link to it, that's fine (if someone can source its notability )

"My Waking Dreamsleep" My pillow case is stuffed with broken glass My blanket's made of brambles The splintered wood mattress is a pain in the ass Sleep is always a gamble.

Sometimes I awake in the dead of the night With cold sweats, paralysed and numb Often I'm sliced, bled dry, deathly white I could die if I sucked my thumb

Each morning as crows hail the dawn in Then fly off to roost with the bats I arise from nightmarish warnings About the soul eating succubāre twats

- traditional

References to succubi in modern times

The section "References to succubi in modern times" doesn't contain any references to Succubi in modern pagan/Wiccan beliefs. Instead it's just a pointless list of Succubi from fiction and video games that would be better off being moved to the Succubi in fiction article. P Ingerson (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of succubi

I think it would be interesting to have a section talking about where do succubi come from: are they a "species" in themselves or do they come from humans, and if so how does a human turn into a succubus? There are probably lots of "theories" but that's not a problem - it would be a matter of listing the different "theories". Myself, I don't know enough to write such a section, but if anyone does I think it would be very interesting. PoisonedQuill 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect redirection

"Baobhan Sith" redirects here, when it should actually go to Banshee. I don't know how to fix it, or I would... --StarChaser Tyger 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. IPSOS (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Baobhan Sith" is a vampire. Sanitycult (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation REALLY needed?

Under the area detailing the Middle Eastern belief of a succubus, it is indicated there is a citation needed. Do you REALLY need a citation for local folklore? I don't think you do. Comments? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, cite the fact that anyone actually believed this or told this story. People can't just go around making up myths and claiming they belong to a certain nation without referencing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.71.70 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct terminology for a gay Succubus / Incubus?

This came up here: Characters_in_the_Night_Watch_Universe#Ignat. Is a male demon that seduces other males a Succubus or an Incubus? Thanks! - Richfife 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, the name is indicative of the demon's sex, not what sex they seduce. A male creature is an incubus. JuJube 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks! That's what I thought. Corrected. - Richfife 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  @JuJube actually it does, succubi seek out men while incubuses seek out women Emalin1005 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  though succubi turn into incubi and vice versa after feeding/sex Emalin1005 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Why is this article connected with Ann Coulter?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.233 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from the article

An IP editor added this to the eymology section, but it seemed to be more discussion, so I'm putting it here. Aleta ^Sing 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblical:

A strumpet as said in Leviticus from the Douay-Rheims version of the bible "Make not thy daughter a common strumpet, lest the land be defiled, and filled with wickedness" (Chapter 19 verse 29). A strumpet ,means in the New world dictionary college edition a prostitute, etc. Again in Leviticus it says Chapter 19 verse 31 "go not aside after wizards, neither ask any thing of soothsayers, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God." A soothsayer is someone who divines or observes dreams something the bible says yet once more in Leviticus not to do. If I am understanding this to make any sense a succubus then would carry the defilements of the soothsayer and whoever went aside from the wizard would be greeted with a hugely attractive woman that could not be resisted, of course not in actual reality but in your dreams, etc. and once confronted with this irresistible woman you yourself would be bringing whatever light that was in your dreams to reality or as if nothing happened. Basically defying the Lord since you are not to "divine nor observe dreams" as said in Chapter 19 verse 26.

Nevan

Why is Nevan listed as a related article? She's a saint (well, that's not my pesonal opinion, mind you; it's what the article says). Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Modern explanations

I have added a section relating succubi to sleep paralysis while also mentioning similar accounts of alien abduction. Stickings90 (talk) 09:11, 04 February (GMT)

Demon?

How did this succubus lady get demonized? It sounds like a pretty good thing.--208.127.100.147 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted images

This page is about a succubus. The images that were deleted show a visual transformation over time. If the relief originally was a goddess and then later in Christianity became associated with demons like Lilith or Lilitu (who happens to be a succubus) then it becomes very interesting to see the visual transformation. Please reinstate the images that were deleted including the link for the video game that represents a modern version of a succubus. USchick (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. This is an encyclopedia. The images do not show any visual transformation over time. The Burney Relief is not Lilith and not a succubus (and has nothing to do with Christianity associating anything, it was a misidentification, not some religious association) and clearly does not belong. Video game images also clearly do not belong. I do not understand how anyone could seriously claim otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The video game character is not a succubus? A succubus is a legendary creature. By definition, the legend changes over time and so does the visual representation. :) USchick (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Discussion

It seems to be an issue with this article that people are adding names to the known Succubi list as a joke or whatever other reasons they have. Should there be a discussion over permanently protecting this page in a similar manner as the page on Devil which was semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it as a result of consistent and categoric vandalism which appears to be what is happening here? TeraSuccubi (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And in addition that that note, the addition of Khannea Suntzu to the article is not correct. That is not a widely recognized Succubus in literature or otherwise and should not be present in the article. The other names listed are historically known as Succubi, she is not other than in Second Life, therefore her name should be removed accordingly.TeraSuccubi (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Typo. Just a little word change.

"It is believed by some in the field of medicine that the stories relating to encounters with succubi bear similar resemblance to the contemporary phenomenon of people reporting alien abductions, which has been ascribed to the condition known as sleep paralysis."

"bear similar resemblance" is a redundant statement and should either be: "bear resemblance" or "bear similarities". I would edit it but this is a new account.  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Polack (talk • contribs) 14:21 December 25, 2010

Glaring problem

The article says "...in dreams", then goes on describing actual interaction. Which is it? Is it a dream, or is there a physicality. I can't believe losers go ON and ON about video games, but no one has mentioned this glaring problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hexenhammer

The book does not address why a human female impregnated with the semen of a human male would not produce a regular human offspring, although after transferring the male semen to the Incubi it is believed the semen is altered to match the genetic material of the Succubus and the incubi before being transferred to a human female host. But in some Viking lore the child is born deformed because the conception was unnatural

I don't think that they had an idea about genetic material in 1483. --136.187.37.161 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Too Many Alsos

Hi. I deleted a number of 'alsos' for various reasons. Please see the history for specifics. I will not remove the flag, but instead defer to someone else to determine if my paring down is sufficient. Whyhelloclarice (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Whyhelloclarice: probably they could all be removed. Many aren't demons and are more properly vampires or fairies, and really need an independent source classifying them as a parallel of a succubus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

edit problem

someone accidentally delete contents from this page while he change fiend to demon

especially when there is many sources considered succubi as fiends and devils too

so it is similar in meanings if not actually synonym

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you trying to change "demon" to "fiend"? It stated "demon" before you got here, and that is the term used in reliable sources. Stick to the sources and quit messing around with these terms. What you personally think the terms mean does not matter. And the term "fiend" in general is very rare. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

remove many contents of page just to replace one term is unacceptable deed

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh??? Why do you want to change this term? Crossroads ^-talk- 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

read what I wrote again

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Video

Video 207.174.233.51 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Should succubi be portrayed in a positive or negative light?

I reverted this good faith edit because for me it seems that almost all media portray succubi as "semen demons" who perform their activities at the expense of the host, sort of like a parasite. I am aware there are media that try to show more two-sided relations between succubi and their targets, but I think the negative light should be kept because in the religious context they were almost never seen in a good light. RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

“Succuus” misspelling for “Succubus or another spelling/name?

Or is “Succuus” some kind of old name/spelling for “Sucubus”?

A footnote 10. misreads/illreads/reads:

“History of the Succuus”… ”Archived from the original” [404] 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:34F0:A4BA:DA1C:DAC6 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Original research? Is the article conflating similar but unrelated folkloric/mythological entities, in some kind of "unified theory"

I have the impression the article is kind of lumping potentially historically/culturally unrelated myths around demonic females (or not necessarily females) of a sexual proclivity in a way that may amount to original research, with phrases such as "Lilith became a succubus." While the likening may be acceptable as a figure of speech, I'm wonder whether that may not be somewhat like going out on a limb and saying things like "in the Hebrew Bible, some angels became incubus, mating with human women, who then gave birth the nephilim offspring." In other words, there may be a whole host of angelic/demonic entities with sexual activities, of unrelated cultural origins, lumped as "themcubus," which may really be a more specific thing. So it ends up being somewhat like referring to any felid as "tigers," for a more clear explanation of the Venn-diagram type of problem that I think may be happening. But I don't know. "Succubus" just sounds to me more specific than "vampire," and even the "vampire" article seems to be more careful in not lumping different blood-feeding folkloric entities as the same thing, at the same time that "vampire" seems even more excusable to be used as a broader category, but maybe that's not all that objective. 45.234.133.230 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The statement "Lilith became a succubus" is directly supported by the citations provided. Per the first paragraph of the WP:OR policy, it doesn't count as original research if it's supported by a reliable published source. Anaxial (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)