This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification
Freak is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
@GenQuest: I added "monster" to the "See also" list and was reverted with a vague summary "not needed". I think the cultural concepts of freaks and monsters are closely related and often overlap, and there is value in linking one to the other. Arguments to the contrary? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea13:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb: The word, Freaks, in this usage does not refer to monsters, the word is in reference to people. Human beings. People are not monsters. Any relation between the two are tenuous at best. I can see no value added using that word/link here in this particular article. GenQuest"scribble"19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they're not the same thing; if they were, they'd be the same article. That's not what "See also" means. I can read as well as anyone that this article is about humans. But there is a huge cultural association throughout history of deformed but otherwise perfectly natural humans with supernatural powers and phenomena. One could write a full, well-sourced section on that association, probably a whole article. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea14:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]