Jump to content

Talk:Megalomania/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Redirected to narcissism

Megalomania was just redirected to narcissism, which I thought was pretty weak. Also, I wanted to disambig since I have a novel titled Megalomania (novel) on the Ian Wallace (author) page.

What would be great would be if somebody knowledgable would write a short "megalomania" article, maybe a paragraph, referencing narcissism, instead of just pushing to it. Then we could put the typical "Megalomania may also refer to the 1989 novel" disclaimer at the top. --Iroll 03:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be an article such as "Megalomania (mental disorder)" and be referred to on the disambiguation page? --CloudSurfer 09:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Heh... that would make more sense, now wouldn't it? Good idea :) --Iroll 17:56, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of megalomaniacs

Not every leader who made some sort of difference is a megalomaniac !! Why do people just go on adding to the list unnecessarily ? --Anish7 18:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to me that people are being added there just because of the editor´s whims. --Krasniy Volk (213.0.167.39) 16:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I think if you going to say "The following notable people and characters are widely believed to be megalomaniacs.", you need to have links to sites or documentation that supports someone's inclusion on the list. Are we supposed to believe that these people "are widely believed to be megalomaniacs" just because someone wrote it on a site as if it were a fact? There are already enough opinions masquerading as facts on the web; Wikipedia doesn't need to lower itself to that level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.142.76 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
There's no documented evidence or diagnosis of megalomania in Bill Clinton. His inclusion seems to be merely a political smear. I am removing Bill Clinton from this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatAlfredini (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Just because they were highly ambitious and successful does mean they had mental problems or were megalomaniacs. They all had huge egos and dreams, but it's besides the point. I think this is unfair. --Elysianfields 04:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
What about Bush? I could understand why someone would label Bush over Clinton, but I would not go so far as to claim that he has a megalomania. I will remove soon if there is no response here. (Politics aside please) --Elysianfields 04:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Agent Smith removed as he wasn't delusional (in the fictitious world of the Matrix he's actually extraordinarily powerful). If you're going to incorporate him, you may as well incorporate Zeus. --24.22.227.53 18:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
He could still be classed as a megalomaniac as he is obsessed with gaining power which is basically what a megalomaniac is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.92 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Based on all the evidence I could find, Megalomania, as a mental illness, is another term for Narcissistic personality disorder, which already has an extensive article. I feel that the explanation of megalomania in the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and the only thing that made the article remotely encyclopedic was the list of names. But the list of names is unverifiable, as I'll attempt to establish below. I felt that without any important encyclopedic content, the article should merely redirect to Narcissistic personality disorder. I tried to be bold, as the Wiki slogan goes, and redirected on my own. Another user disagreed and reverted the article. So, I'll post it here and hope that a consensus can develop. For the time being, I've added "See Narcissistic personality disorder for further information." --Cpaliga 01:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know Megalomania is not, in any sense, a synonym for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and thus the redirect is inappropriate (though, IMHO somewhat more informative than the article it replaced, so you were certainlky right to redirect it at the time), hoping we can discuss and arrive at a concensus on this, but one way or another, over the next few days/weeks I shall be researching/creating a real megalomania article to place here. You might like to look at Narcissism talk for an idea of some of what I have in mind. --Zeraeph 07:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]
Zeraeph, I think that would be great. The reason I merged it was because of what the megalomania article had become. The article was essentially a brief definition and then a list of "megalomaniacs." I think it started in the original article as a list of megalomaniacs in literature Through edits it evolved an unreconcilable POV from anyone who decided to diagnose some political figure or celebrity they didn't like with a mental illness. I actually hope you do put up a good article about megalomania and wish you luck. (The redirect was just so the article went somewhere relevant, maybe I should have redirected to wiktionary,) --Cpaliga 17:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Wikipedia is definitely not the place to diagnose a public figue with a mental disorder. Its not encyclopedic and not verifiable. The list needs to be deleted. --Cpaliga 01:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. --Cog05 22:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
SO DO I! Particularly if they are still alive and capable of litigation! --Zeraeph 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Suggestions and Votes on Possible Solutions

  • Goal for Consensus: Wed. October 12, 2005

Unless someone can find a meaningful difference between Megalomania and NPD, Redirect to Narcissistic personality disorder. --Cpaliga 01:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me have a bit to pull something together in a basic article. Sometimes all it takes to get editors out of the floorboard cracks is give them something to read, so they think, "Hey, I can do better than that!" --A green Kiwi in learning mode 06:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please - I have meant to do this myself for ages but the days keep catching me up and passing me out and the time has just never been there. --Zeraeph 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge, disambiguate

I left the Merge tag up and the information below up for a week. It doesn't seem that anyone cares enough to object. I will redirect to Narcissistic personality disorder. If anyone objects PLEASE discuss in talk before changing the redirect. --Cpaliga 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to redirect this to a disambiguation page for Megalomania. Since Megalomania is also referenced in pop culture, I think an article could be written about the term itself, but since that option has already been negated through discussion, I think a disambiguation page is necessary. The page would have:
The page Megalomaniac would also redirect to this disambiguation page instead of to NPD as it does now. I feel this is very necessary at this point and should have been addressed long ago. --DMurphy 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've gathered a good list of similarly titled articles and works and I created a disambiguation page. Right now I'm working on an article for the song Megalomaniac, but as soon as I am done I plan to redirect this page and Megalomaniac to the disambiguation page. --DMurphy 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Reinstating due to interest on the NPD page, but if there isn't at least half an article within 14 days feel free to replace the re-direct --Zeraeph 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

delusional?

is it the psyhological classification that a megalomaniac is strictly delusional in his fantasies, or would the term be equally valid to someone with justified beliefs of the same (drawing on the concept of delusional as per the 'pedia article being someone will false beliefs). unless the actual term delusional is present in psychological terminology i think it is unjust of us to place megalomania under this heading

from literature and storytelling for example, i can imagine several instances when someone (ususally the villain) is at the verge of reaching omnipotence and still be considered a megalomaniac simply because of the attitude or passion this person has towards his destiny

whatever might be the case here, i think it is vital that some sort of distinction is made so to clarify the possible difference between delusional fantasies of power and justified fantasies of the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.183.251 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This band's music goes somewhere else

Removed from topic page - moved to disambig pages?

In 2004, the alternative-rock band Incubus released their single Megalomaniac, which topped charts, reaching #1 for US modern rock, and #55 in the US Hot 100. The word and topic is also used in a song by Black Sabbath on the album Sabotage (album), as well as the British rock band, Muse on their album Origin of Symmetry. Also, the band KMFDM made a song called Megalomaniac, found on the Symbols (album), released in 1997.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs) 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What "makes sense" to me may make no sense to you

Tonight, this was removed by an editor as a strange SG-1 speculation-

  • The main villain race in the science fiction series Stargate SG-1, the Goa'uld, are portrayed as megalomaniacs who pose as gods to control the people they have enslaved, but also to gratify their enormous egos.

While simultaneously adding this -

  • There is a 19th century‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] stereotype of megalomaniacs deluding themselves into believing they are Napoleon.

I think this is one of those times when feedback should be sought about the advisability of removing a prior edit. Actually, while I am very familiar with mental patients having delusions of being god (or the devil), I've never known one to think he was "the Shrub" nor any rock or film star. I recall the seeing cartoons when I was was small, but I never saw anything about patients like this, or about what their delusions may have been. Perhaps this started as a shrink's joke? Or someone's joke? Personally, I do think it should be flagged ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] :o) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd, as even though a fictional example that not everyone will be (or should be) familiar with, the Goa'uld are in fact a proper example of megalomania. (Nearly always claiming to be gods, while not being even close as powerful as they claim) --Nerusai 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Both of the above were properly removed if, for no better reason, than that they were unsourced original research. If there are sources where Stargate authors explicitly discuss megalomanical aspects to the Goa'uld, feel free to restore it. Either way, however, it is still something of a distraction from the article at large - The trivia section should not be larger than the rest, as it grants such popular media references undue weight. If anyone reading this is familiar with the topic enough to expand more than the trivia section, please do that first and fulfill the expert request. --MrZaiustalk 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ming the Merciless

The article states Emperor Ming the Merciless of Mongo from the Adventures of Flash Gordon as having megalomania as in delusions of grandeur. Ming's belief in his own grandeur was not delusional, he was the emperor of the universe (well most of it) that sounds pretty grand to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.118 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree; Ming was a despot, but where is the evidence that he was a megalomaniac? --lquilter 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
PS - I removed the Ming example per these notes. --Lquilter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lquilter (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well he was a megalomaniac in a way as he wanted to rule the universe (and had succeeded) however he did not have delusions of grandeur as his belief in his grandeur as I have stated was not delusional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.97 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Expert request

It has been proposed at several junctures that this page be redirected to narcissistic personality disorder. Objections were noted, but never really backed up or followed up by expansion of the article. It remains little more than a two sentence definition, only slightly longer and stronger than the wiktionary article. If there's nothing more to be said for the condition, we can and should axe this and move the disambig page here, relying instead on the wiktionary definition. If not, we can replace this page's introduction with the start of a viable article, discussing the history of the term or introducing real content about the disorder. --<fontcolor="Blue">MrZaiustalk 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Syndrome

Removed "The character Syndrome in the movie The Incredibles was a megalomaniac." from film examples. The character was the classic supervillian version covered earlier in the entry, in that he activley sought power instead of thinking he already had it. By the time of the main part of the movie he had actually achieved wealth and power, lacking only recognician for this, and thus was not a meglamaniac in the clinical sense. 9:46, 4/25/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.66.3.204 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of megalomaniacs have actually achieved wealth and power, they're just obsessed with gaining more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.22 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Megolamania examples

A previous author mentions Light Yakami as being megalomaniac ("Megalomania is portrayed very often in fiction, usually as an affliction of supervillains and some heroes, like Light Yagami from Death Note.")

While still delusional, he'd hardly be a clinical case of delusions of grandeur, I would propose a removal.

(While describing his rule as that of a God, he's most definitely aware of the limitations posed on his existence, proven for instance in the refusal to trade half his life for a minor extra ability - definitely a recognition of one's own limitations. Beyond that, he kind of has the power to kill everyone, so that part isn't delusional at all. --Nerusai 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a diagnosis

While Megalomania may be a great fictional diagnosis, descriptive term, or "syndrome", in psychology and psychiatry it is not used. None of the diagnostic manuals use the term to describe anything. The article needs to correctly reflect this. It is not a part of Narcissistic personality disorder in ICD-10 or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the two most commonly used diagnostic systems. --Mattisse 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree to the extent that you have argued your case. At this time, I will not repeat (copy & paste) my sermon on the fact that neither the DSM nor the ICD are bibles concerning mental illnesses and disorders, but instead a general concensus at any particular point in time as to what various accumulation of symptoms and signs will be called. However, megalomania does describe what was a firmly set and widely described diagnois up until the DSM-I. And it still describes a specific cluster of symptoms recognized all over the world and all through history. You just have to know where to look.
Go to PubMed and you will retrieve 26 abstracts, dating from the early 70's thru 2005 that utilize the term, even in their titles. For one instance, 'Hitler: A Study in Megalomania' Sleigh A. Can Psychiatr Assoc J. 1966 Jun;11(3):20.18- The eminent Emil Kraeplin wrote about it, as did Freud, before elements of the term were drawn into a developmental concept of infant development.
And there is the 2005 book by Andrew Scull retrieved from Google Scholar, 'A Tragic Tale of Megalomania and Modern Medicine'. He has also published a journal article in PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW, 2005 - Aus Acad Press, entitled Madhouse: A Tragic Tale of Megalomania and Modern Medicine' Overall, Google Scholar retrieved 8,300 instances.
While megalomania is not a DSM or ICDM diagnosis, it is a diagnosis still in use by many and Google the term in medical dictionaries and you will find it. The current edition of the classic (ie, all 1st year med students are required to buy it) Dorland's Medical Dictionary says this - megalomania (meg·a·lo·ma·nia) (meg”ə-lo-ma´ne-ə) [megalo- + -mania] unreasonable conviction of one's own extreme greatness, goodness, or power; the ideas in megalomania are known as delusions of grandeur.
A search for available books that index the term, and you will find all of them are texts on Narcissism.
From the 2001 edition of the Online Etymology Dictionary, the term dates from at least 1890 from the French mégalomanie, formed from Greek. megas (gen. megalou) "great" (see mega-) + mania "madness.": The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history. (Bertrand Russell)
Prior to the emergence of the joining of the myth of Narcissis (which occured long before Sigmund Freud spread it far and wide - Freud just co-opted it), megalomania was the word that referred to this particular type of narcissist, often seen in the tryants thru-out history. Obviously, it is a descriptive term that describes a certain set of 'states of mind' that characterizes a type of person long labeled 'mad'.
A stop at [1] yields 10 results from highly varied dictionaries, including an international dictionary that show 30 countries that use the term with the same meaning as megalomania.
Peruse this page, however, and one can see that a Disambiguation page is obviously needed for the term. [2] as it now is used in the name of computer games, etc.
This has been interesting, searching all this out this evening because while I had heard the term, I found I had only a limited sense of its meaning.
I would suggest that at least the references above from Dorland's and the Etymology Dictionary be included as cites in the article's text. --Spotted Owl (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No one is denying that megalomania is a frequently used word. Bertrand Russell is not a reliable source for psychology/psychiatry. He was philosopher and the terminology in philosophy does not transfer over to psychological/psychiatric diagnosies. The fact Freud used it is irrelevant. He used many words from literary sources.Very few of his terms are diagnoses today, if any. It could be a diagnosis, just not in psychology, psychiatry, or medicine in general. In these areas, diagnoses are restricted to those listed in the two diagnostic manuals accepted world-wide. Because a word comes up frequently in journal titles or anywhere else is not a way of determining whether it is a diagnostic term. That method might yield "family patterns" as a diagnostic term or "research analysis" or "meta-anlysis" or even the word "the". Further, popular press, general dictionaries etc. are not sources for diagnoses. Find sources that are reliable, unbiased, third-party sources. What are the credentials, body of work etc. of Dorland that he is qualified to determine what is considered a diagnostic term in the professional sense? His dictionary looks like a "pop" dictionary. Regards, --Mattisse 14:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Mattisse... You are certainly right in all that you say about the two seriously recognized tomes, the DSM series and ICDM series, evolving thru the years to reflect psychiatry's consensus about what is or is not considered an actual diagnosis, which is why they keep issuing new editions after years of hammering out the final product.
But I will note that above I used the word diagnosis only once - when I said megalomania does describe what was a firmly set and widely described diagnois up until the DSM-I. And it still describes a specific cluster of symptoms recognized all over the world and all through history.
For the rest, I was just pointing out that consistently, by psychiatric professionals and by dictionaries (which select words based on frequency of usage and what it is currently taken to mean. When speaking about Megalomania, one is not speaking of a 'official diagnosis', so of course one cannot put the blocks/charts -whatever they are called- that lists its numeric label in the books, and I agree that it should not be labeled a diagnosis.
As the rest of my discourse was to point out how the word has specificdally, since its first noted usage (ie, in print still available to us) 130 years ago, it has always and consistently meant the exact same thing, through-out the years... And that there is no diagnosis that exactly reflects this specific cluster of signs and symptoms. The fact that we discuss a well known term, worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia, does not mean it has to be a diagnosis and it should not be presented as being a diagnosis, but it is perfectly proper to describe what the word means and how it is still currently used.
NOT a diagnsos. But indeed a consistently described cluster of signs and symptoms long considered a madness .. one associated with the (self-)destructive actions of tyrantical leaders. Megalomania/megalomaniac are terms still used by Department of Defense teams in creating personaolity profiles workups of various leaders of political coalitions and is still heard in political science classrooms.
I understand that no psychiatrist could sit in court and 'diagnose' Sadam Hussein or a dozen other leaders as megolomaniacs for fear of his being labeled as living in another century. But it is important for us Wiki good guy editors, like you and I, to be totally clear for our readers - and in that vein, I think it might behoove the project if various psychiatric and medical terms (such as 'the dropsy') be pointed out as no longer constituting a diagnosis, while recognizing that it continues to be necessary for us to correctly UNDERSTAND the meaning of a word they come across.
I acknowledge and understand how tightly the letter of the law restrains the meaning and use of words when it comes to findings of fact -and that is as it should be. Keep us hopping, and thus on the straight and narrow!! ;o) --Spotted Owl (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost forgot. You asked, What are the credentials, body of work etc. of Dorland that he is qualified to determine what is considered a diagnostic term in the professional sense? His dictionary looks like a "pop" dictionary.
Dorland's dictionary is so professional a source that the Merck Diagnosistic Manual considers it the sole source of their reference library. And every medical student is also required to purchase at least the compact edition of the Merck Medical Diagnosistic Manual (Merck's was bright red, Dorland's green back in '74 when my med student husband brought them home. Both are great reading and both are now freely available online as a service of Merck). I doubt there is an ER in the US that does not have a copy in a drawer or on a shelf somewhere, for no physician can be expected to remember all the medical diagnoses, never mind all their signs and symptoms.
Dorland's name on a dictionary is much like Webster's name on a dictionary, given that both men are long deceased. (William Alexander Newman Dorland, 1864-1956) and his dictionary is now in its 31st printed edition. It is also heavily marketed in electronic form for physicians, just as is the Merck Diagnosistic Manual, so they can carry them, in various available electronic database computerized devices.
And regarding the quotation one of the dictionaries used.... An etymologist is someone who studies the derivation of a word, from its earliest appearance. The best known such dictionary is The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, found in all library reference sections. Many other countries have written their own language's etymology dictionaries. Such dictionaries use quotations to reflect and illustrate the accurate meaning. When a particular word's meaning has changed thru the years and centuries, a quotation might be found drawn from each stage of the word's evolution.
Again, wish to make clear to the reader that I am not arguing that the syndrome called megalomania is a diagnosis - only that this universally descriptive term has (and continues to have) a highly specific and illustrative meaning, making it instantly recognizable. The fact that megalomania is common to SOME narcissists does not render megalogmania into a diagnosis. --Spotted Owl (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Spotted Owl, do you have the sources to write a couple of paragraphs on the history of the term? I don't think that anyone would object to a section that outlines who coined the term, how it was originally defined, and how the definitions changed over time. Wikipedia has room for articles about historical terms (see four humours), even if they've been superseded by other terms in modern practice. --WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea, WhatamIdoing. That would make for much more interesting reading than trying to squeeze it into a diagnostic category. It would give more latitude to explore the many rich meanings of the term in history, literature etc. Diagnosis has greatly changed, in fact drastically changed, since 1974. If you want to get a taste of diagnostic hassling, read Reactive attachment disorder which is up for FAC at the moment. It is a diagnostic category, unfortunately for many of the original editors, and the article even had to go to Arbitration to settle the issue of guidelines for medicine-related articles. The result: Wikipedia:MEDMOS and Wikipedia:MEDRS. You could peruse those guidelines and see if that is the direction in which you want to go. --Mattisse 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What impudent varlet be this who doth dare coerce me thusly? Ah, it be the aptly named WhatamIdoing (in sly aside to the audience), a man who will have to understand that I have brain damage of several years (CPTSD) that causes my word retrieval to sometimes become one of your boxed obsessions. :o)
Yes, online alone are all the sources needed (save a stroll down a few blocks to the library for the Oxford English) to write more than a few paragraphs.
But I do wish to point out that megalomania is not simply an archaic diagnostic term, but is very much, with the identical meaning, a word in the current popular lexicon. I was in correspondence early last year with an author and present professor who teaches in political science, but in courses blending her specialty - that of the psychological aspects of political science. I am rather certain I saved her letter to me online. She might be able to help out. --Spotted Owl (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, thank you for your support in taking this article from contentious battleground to excellent, if brief, WP article. Your ideas are great! This will be fun. :o) --Spotted Owl (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Poorly worded run-on sentence

The word is a collaboration of the word "mania" meaning madness and the Greek "megalo" meaning "very large", "great", or "exaggerated", thus combining to denote an obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for or preoccupation with in one's own estimation having and/or obtaining, grandiosity and extravagance (especially in the form of great fame and popularity, material wealth, social influence or political power, or more than one or even all of the aforesaid) and accompanying complete desirous and bombastic abandon; a common symptom if not the key diagnostic feature of megalomania.

Someone needs to fix that. Oddity- (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be a key feature of megalomania, but megalomania is not a mental illness, nor a symptom of mental illness, per the diagnostic manuals DSM and ICD-10, the two diagnostic manuals used around the world. It is a world descriptive of behavior, but not all such words are symptoms or mental illnesses. --Mattisse 03:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the history of wanting to redirect or merge this article

I did some reading above and was horrified to find that at one time someone wanted the article redirected to Narcissistic Personality Disorder and (more unbelievably) was once actually redirected to Narcissism. I hope the discussion that Mattisse and I are currently engaged in will clarify the position the word Megalomania holds in the 21st century, and helps clarify that it is a term that has always described a collective of delusionary beliefs and behaviors. The fact that it illustrates a sub-population of those with pathological Narcissism, Narcissistic peronality disorder does not render it a synomym of that disorder nor does it bequeath upon it the weight of diagnosis. --Spotted Owl (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Megalomania Entry Has Been Hijacked By a Wiki-megalomaniac

A perhaps well-intentioned "editor" continually deletes attempts to enhance the entry. He/she has no listed credentials other than enjoying certain types of music, and taking pride in deleting the work of othersLearner001 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)(talk) 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to IllaZilla. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Do you know of this person? Note to IllaZilla. This Megalomania is a public page. You don't own it. Any further capricious deletions on this page will be reported. If you have a criticism, it's welcome: post it on the page. Please see problem areas with your general editing "work". It's well known. Best advice: please refrain from any further involvement with this page.Learner001 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know him. He's a bit deletion crazed and at times ownery but he means well. By the way Learner001, kindly refrain from making statements about the editing of articles within the articles themselves. It's unprofessional. Take the case to IllaZilla's talk page.--Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I did that out of utter frustration. I would like to start a new article about megalomaniacs in history, but I got sidetracked. Not sure why he's so interested in that page. I did not change anything other than add examples. Is that a wiki-problem? Also good to hear that you think he means well. Thanks for your input. Seriously!Learner001 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there specific edits of mine that you're upset about? Could you possibly provide diffs to illustrate? I assume you are talking about my removal of your list of "Significant historical individuals..." As I explained in my edit summaries, this is not a list article, and having such a list in this article is not appropriate. The "List of megalomaniacs" article was deleted by consensus because it was deemed inappropriate. The same goes for having the exact same thing in this article. All of them were unsourced and based entirely on your own point of view, and there is little to no encyclopedic value to having a "list of megalomaniacs" in the article. Feel free to report me, but I am confident that community consensus will support me on this issue (it already has, per the AfD of the list article). I will thank you not to make personal attacks or rants about me here, on my talk page, Jupiter's talk page, or elsewhere. You do not own this article any more than I or anyone else does. We are all welcome to edit it, as long as we act in good faith to improve it, and none of us are confined to editing only those areas of Wikipedia that we express interest in on our user pages. It is clear from your user page that you are editing this article with a high amount of POV, and that simply will not be tolerated. If you can come up with some kind of referenced, well-written prose section that discusses "megalomaniacs in history" or something along those lines, that content would probably be very welcome, but this "list of people I despise because I believe they are active human parasites" (though you used more weasely wording) will simply not stand. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Delusions of grandeur?

This article quickly presents megalomania as separate from delusions of grandeur (in the second paragraph). Yet it seems to focus entirely on delusions for the rest of the article; perhaps I'm missing something here, but this seems off to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.184.188 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is DrTonyFlagg speaking. The problem is that there is no article entitled "Delusions of Grandeur" and so material on this phenomenon must share space with Megalomania. If a separate article for Delusions of Grandeur were created, then this material could subsist there. At present, however, it seems appropriate to me for the material to be in the Megalomania article, to provide readers with information to the effect that Megalomania and Delusions of Grandeur are not at all the same thing. DrTonyFlagg. --Drtonyflagg (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I definitely think delusions of grandeur should be made as a separate article. Does this need to be done by an expert, or can anyone with the proper sources do this? 207.237.41.202 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as you've got sufficient source material to support the article, go for it. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance. Also check out the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR, the guideline WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Those should help you get rolling. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Every time I try to transfer the information about delusions of grandeur to its own separate article, other editors keep taking it all out. The delusions of grandeur article desperately needs its own space and should stop being redirected here. Roastporkbun (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How to make "delusions of grandeur"/"grandiose delusion" a separate article?

Can we just transfer the information the the new page? 207.237.41.202 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend rewriting it from scratch. We want to avoide cut & paste moves, as the page history must be kept intact in order to provide proper attribution to our contributors. Check out Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance on splitting topics. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted the definition proposed by the anon. In Megalomania's context the word "mania" has nothing to do with "rage" as the anon has written. "Mania" means "obsession" in this case. so I reverted to the previous, correct, definition. I also reverted the other massive changes because I think massive changes have to be discussed before they are implemented. Dr.K. logos 02:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was the anon before. "Mania" might mean obsession in this context, but neither the Greek translation of "mania" nor the clinical definition of mania means obsession. The sentence incorrectly translated the Greek "mania" to mean obsession. Roastporkbun (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Nice to meet you Roastporkbun. The Greek translation for mania has various meanings depending on the word it is attached to. For example "Kleptomania", "nymphomania" and of course "megalomania", etymologically, do not denote rage but rather extreme attachment, i.e. obsession. As far as the clinical definition I am not an expert so I cannot reliably comment on that. Dr.K. logos 03:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, nice to meet you as well. Perhaps that entire second sentence can be omitted? It already gave some of the Greek etymology in the first sentence. Roastporkbun (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea. But just to make sure, "Μεγαλομανία" does not mean "big rage" but rather an extreme attachment to "grandeur". Dr.K. logos 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Took out that second sentence and just linked the etymological mania definition to mania. Roastporkbun (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. I also add the (non-clinical) dictionary definition of "Megalomania" here

2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.meg'a·lo·ma'ni·ac' n., meg'a·lo·ma·ni'a·cal (-mə-nī'ə-kəl), meg'a·lo·man'ic (-mān'ĭk) adj.

just in case we may want to use it some place. Dr.K. logos 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How can I transfer the contents of the page to delusions of grandeur?

Without being reverted for blanking the page? -Roastporkbun (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, instead of transfering the content, you rewrite it from scratch. As I explained above, cut-and-paste moving is generally a bad thing because the edit history must be in the same place as the content, per the GFDL. However, if you gathered several sources and wrote new prose of your own, you should have no problem building a decent article on delusions of grandeur. You could then do a summary style fork from this article. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I created a small paragraph over at Grandiose delusions for the purpose of expanding this topic. Would I be able now to take out the delusions of grandeur paragraphs from the Megalomania article? -Roastporkbun (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest doing that, but leave a couple of sentences summarizing the relationship between megalomania and grandiose delusions/delusions of grandeur. Then place {{main|Grandiose delusions}} above it. Basically I'm picturing something like this:

== Delusions of grandeur ==

Main article: Grandiose delusions

The relationship between megalomania and delusions of grandeur has been studied by...etc. etc. etc. Psychologists believe that there is a close relationship between the two conditions.

Does that make sense? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll continue to work on it. -Roastporkbun (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging the sections that discuss delusions of grandeur into the delusions of grandeur article

I think the grandiose delusions and psychotic/schizophrenic paragraphs of this article should be merged to the delusions of grandeur article. Anyone? --Roastporkbun (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Mmkay, I'm going to take it out of this article then. Roastporkbun (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents box

I would like to suggest that the contents box be moved to the beginning of the article, rather than sitting towards the end. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo science

This article is full of pseudo science and baloney. Megalomania is a non scientific colloquial word. --Penbat (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, I agree. Wiki red herring number 99,999,997... (sorry, I made that statistic up. Maybe, if I publish it first before putting it here, then it will become "real", citable information..?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.249.161.8 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Megalomania should be merged with Grandiose delusions

I think that this link is where the idea that "megalomania is discussed in DSM-IV" came from. Certainly "grandiosity" is mentioned in DSM-IV as a symptom of various disorders. It is ambiguous whether the author is saying that the word "megalomania" actually appears in DSM-IV or if he is just providing a synonym for grandiosity. I would be surprised if "megalomania" appeared anywhere in DSM-IV and if it did it would just be as another word for grandiosity as a symptom of various disorders and certainly not as a defined disorder. This supports the idas that "megalomania" should be merged with the Grandiose delusions article with "megalomania" as a redirect to Grandiose delusions. There is no reference to megalomania in DSM-IV Codes which lists the names of all the DSM mental disorders.--Penbat (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic names should be redirect to the current condition. Therefore done so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"George Bush and megalomania" of questionable neutrality

Actually, it is completely biased. If you are going to state these facts regarding "George Bush and megalomania", do so with facts from both sides - and expand more than 2 sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.130 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The section says what the sources say. "Both sides" is a meaningless expression for Wikipedia's Npov policy. If you have other sources, add them.--Sum (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The text was copied from an existing Wiki article Bush on the Couch which is also linked to. You should raise any concerns wth that article not this one. That article simply describes a single book, it is not intended as an objective analysis of Bush's mental health.--Penbat (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As IllaZilla pointed out, this is not an article about megalomaniacs in history. The works of one author and his contempt for George W. Bush do not contribute to this article in any fashion, and as Penbat added, it is not an objective analysis of Bush's mental health. As such, it does not belong in an article on mental health. If we were to make the egregious mistake of mentioning every person in history who has been subject to questions of mental health to this article, it would be overwhelmingly subjective and unnecessary. As such, I am deleting the section on George Bush, as I will state once more It has no relevance to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You should argue for the deletion of Bush on the Couch not this section. Megolamania isnt a scientific word. This article has a section suggesting that Alexander the Great was megalomaniac and Bush and there is a historical quote from Betram Russell. So there is plenty of history here. Bush on the Couch is just the view of 1 author deemed worthy of a Wiki article - who know there may be cther books on Bush saying his mental health is perfect. --Penbat (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start edit wars to delete sourced content.--Sum (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Bush on the Couch should be deleted but if anything is to be deleted it is Bush on the Couch as this section simply summarises that article.--Penbat (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that we delete the Bush on the Couch article; the goal of wikipedia as I understand is to be an open source of knowledge, and keeping track of books is part of that. However, the content from that book is not relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Donald Trump Image

Hello, I recently discovered that this page, when viewed on a mobile device that is not logged in to a Wikipedia account, displays an image of Donald Trump with text indicating that he is megalomaniacal, rather than the normal picture. I assume this is vandalism, especially given the degree of care that has apparently been devoted to hiding it. The image is "Donald Trump campaigning at the Laconia Rally, Laconia, New Hampshire". Unfortunately I don't know how this was done or how to fix it, my hope is that another editor will be able to. 96.11.52.202 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism was removed yesterday. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This is still occurring. Even now when I view this page on the desktop site or logged into my account as an editor, I see the heading image of Armand Gautier's litho; however, when I view this page using the mobile site, I see the Trump image. (Is this a server-level hack?) 96.11.52.202 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Huh, no idea why. Might want to try WP:REFRESH. I cleared the server's cache (WP:PURGE), maybe that helps? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've done this. I even used a "clean" browser (one in which I previously had not viewed this page) and it is still occurring. 96.11.52.202 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your purging of the server has corrected this. Thank you. 96.11.52.202 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megalomania/Archive_1&oldid=1140440701"