Talk:Megalomania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Stub This page has been rated as stub-Class on the quality assessment scale
??? This page has not yet received a rating on the importance assessment scale.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

WikiProject Medicine or the Medicine Portal may be able to help recruit one.

If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.(April 2008)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

A lot of megalomaniacs have actually achieved wealth and power, they're just obsessed with gaining more.

Anon

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Current Issues

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[ A 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


[edit] 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)]

[edit] Suggestions and Votes on Possible Solutions

Goal for Consensus: Wed. October 12, 2005

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)

[edit] Old Comments

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)


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 18:56, 24 August 2005 (GMT+1)

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)

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.

  • 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.
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.

[edit] 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.

Nerusai 17:41, 3 July 2007 (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)

While simultaneously adding this -

  • There is a 19th century[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 [citation needed] :o) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Anon

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.)

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.

Anon

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 http://wwww.Dictionary.com 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. http://www.smallsearch.net/megalomania/ 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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)