Talk:Vampire/Archive 6

message: Just a ^precision : early in the article the vampire's ability to arouse lust is mentioned.
Isn't this a victorian, or even post Stoker trait? 
In traditional folklore the vampire was a rather horrid creature, so, if this erotic feature is to be mentioned, should it not be qualified? --Svartalf 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is there a citation that in myth/folklore a non-human vampiric creature can evoke lust in another creature? Alexander 007 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If the lust thing is in there, good catch, it has to be removed. It's only part of relatively modern fiction. Perhaps a mention in the fiction section. That could use some slight expansion about the difference between folklore and common modern fiction, so that would make sense there. Normally we've been trying to keep the fiction section light because lots of people see it and want to add "oh, there was a vampire is this kewl TV show/movie/video game/anime/board game/tattoo I got" and it just explodes into a mass of completely pointless trivia. The lists of stuff can go tot he specific fiction article, but compare contrasts fit well there. DreamGuy 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  erotic qualities 

message: My name is Cody, my email is azenrot@yahoo.com. I want to put in an article about 'homonus nocturnum', the posability of real vampires suffering from a natural and very strong plauge that gives them what power they have. They are not the same as normal vampires and I personaly belive they exist, and would like to put a non-bias article on them for the resons of science.
:No, you can't, sorry. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or speculation. Information you add to Wikipedia must be verifiable and have sources. /Magore 06:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I put in an article? 

message: If it has no basis in the folklore, which it admits, why is it even included?  Rabies has a better correlation than Prophyria, for cripe's sake. Jachra 10:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophyria 

message: Ok how is it that Vampires can't be seen in a mirror or on film? I mean its clear that if you can see a vampire, then they reflect light, so a mirror and/or camera would capture the same light. Yami 06:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's about folklore/mythology. Reasonable or logical explanations doesn't apply.  /Magore 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is an artifact of the belief in some cultures that technological devices like mirrors, cameras, etc. actually show images of (and can actually capture) the soul.  Vampires have no soul, ergo, no image. Applejuicefool 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Applejuicefool is correct.  During the middle ages, all creatures of evil were believed to be unviewable in mirrors.  Demons, doppleganger, people who had sold their souls, etc.  An alternate belief is that mirrors would reveal one's true image.  A faerie in human guise could be revealed as otherworldly in a mirror, or not show up at all if you assumed faeries were soulless.  Mythologies don't tend to be horribly consistent on issues like this. --Suttkus 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mirror 

message: This article deals with vampires in folklore and mythology. Not in fiction, there is a separate article for that. It doesn't matter if information added comes from Dracula or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, fiction is fiction while folklore is folklore, thus elements from vampire fiction should go in the article about vampire fiction, and not here. 
It is quite simple, actually. If people used to believe in it (for real, that is, thus it excludes sanguinarius and other games where modern and enlightened people pretend to believe in vampires and vampirism), it qualifies as folklore/mythology, and should go in this article. The works of creative minds like Bram Stoker or Joss Whedon should not go in this article, since it's neither folklore nor mythology, people don't believe it is for real. If we could all respect that, and put stuff where it belongs, this article should be a lot easier to maintain. Thank you. /Magore 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dracula is fiction, not folklore. And what you have described is what is stated in Dracula, for example that "he has the strength of 40 men", and you use Dracula as a reference. Sorry, but it will be removed again, unless you rephrase it and use another source than Dracula. And don't forget to sign your comments. /Magore 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Vlad III Dracula wasn't a vampire. Bram Stoker "borrowed" his name when he created the character Dracula, a completely fictious creature. The real Dracula never had anything to do with vampires or vampirism. That the real Dracula should have anything to do with vampires or vampirism is a common missunderstanding due to the works of Bram Stoker. The vampire Dracula is strictly fiction (although based on a real person), while the romanian nobleman Dracula is history. /Magore 10:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, vampires exist only in European folklore. /Magore 19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little reminder, please read 

message: are there any religions or occult beliefs which glorify vampires  Karzack 04:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. /Magore 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is this new age temple calling themselves "The Temple of Vampire" Vila 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, as the article mentions, a thousand years ago the Russian pagans reportedly offered sacrifice to vampires. Generally, fear of all kinds of evil spirits causes people to "placate" them in the same way as they would placate their gods.--194.145.161.227 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worshipping vampires 

message: I get the impression that this article needs a bit of a cleanup again, as some sections - like Traits of vampires - seem to contain a mix of fiction and folklore. And, since this can't be mentioned often enought, this article is about vampires in folklore, and not vampire fiction. There is a separate article about vampire fiction. Here are a few thoughts and ideas to consider:
=== A cleanup of the Traits of vampires section ===
A lot (if not all) of the information in this section is frequently mentioned and referred to in different fictional works involving vampires. But this article is about vampires in folklore, so if it's not known in vampire tales that are known to be folklore as well, it shouldn't go here. Mixing fiction with folklore makes this article unencyclopedic, and that won't do at all. People should be able to read this article, and be fairly certain that what they find is actually about "real" vampires, ie not something that was invented later. (In short, a vampire is a reanimated corpse that rises from the grave to suck the blood from living people. Vampires are supernatural creatures, and there are no reasonable explanations to be found, since they have never existed for real.)
=== Early mention of the difference between folklore and fiction ===
Maybe we should add some kind of visible (not necessarily in-your-face-ish) but yet "encyclopedic" reminder of the difference between folklore and fiction in the article itself, preferably near the top. My experience is that a lot of the fiction and cruft that constantly needs to be cleaned out are added by people who stumble across this article, and then realize that something they saw in Buffy, Underworld or read about in Dracula has been left out, and makes a quick edit. Without reading the talk page first, thus not knowing that information like that should go in the other article. Ie the one about vampire fiction.
=== A more discriminating and restrictive view on what is a vampire ===
Chupacabras, Pontianaks, Hopping corpses, Werewolfs and Onis have one thing in common - They are not vampires. Vampires are creatures from east european folklore, and known simply as "vampires". If they aren't known as vampires, and are found elsewhere, whey aren't vampires, period. The simple fact that other mythological creatures share some traits and characteristics with the east european vampire doesn't make them vampires. With that kind of reasoning, the vampire is a zombie, since it is a reanimated corpse. It is also a ghost since it has a will of its own. But a vampire is neither zombie nor ghost, a vampire is a vampire. Thus there is no need to go into detail on those other creatures, not in this article.
Well, that's about all for this time. I know I bitch a lot about the folklore-vs-fiction-mixups in this article, but someone has to do that, since this is an encyclopedia. It is meant to inform and educate, not entertain. /Magore 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say... We had removed Chupacabras, Werewolves, Onis and etc. in the past, but unfortunately, this being open to the general public and the general public not being very bright and wanting to put their garbage in over and over, it keeps coming back. Just the price you pay letting any old idiot show up and give them equal editing rights. DreamGuy 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folklore vs vampire fiction 

message: Chupacabras, Pontianaks, Hopping corpses, Werewolfs and Onis have one thing in common - They are not vampires. Vampires are creatures from east european folklore, and known simply as "vampires". If they aren't known as vampires, and are found elsewhere, whey aren't vampires, period. The simple fact that other mythological creatures share some traits and characteristics with the east european vampire doesn't make them vampires. With that kind of reasoning, the vampire is a zombie, since it is a reanimated corpse. It is also a ghost since it has a will of its own. But a vampire is neither zombie nor ghost, a vampire is a vampire. Thus there is no need to go into detail on those other creatures, not in this article.
Well, that's about all for this time. I know I bitch a lot about the folklore-vs-fiction-mixups in this article, but someone has to do that, since this is an encyclopedia. It is meant to inform and educate, not entertain. /Magore 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say... We had removed Chupacabras, Werewolves, Onis and etc. in the past, but unfortunately, this being open to the general public and the general public not being very bright and wanting to put their garbage in over and over, it keeps coming back. Just the price you pay letting any old idiot show up and give them equal editing rights. DreamGuy 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more discriminating and restrictive view on what is a vampire 

message: I'm putting the nomination on HOLD for one week so you can get a chance to work on the following to get GA status;
*The bulletted sections should be prosified
*There are too many one sentence paragraphs, the information should be formed into paragraphs for readability. 
*There are too many sections, like "new england" that should probably be merged. 
*The articles biggest need is more references, probably about 15 footnoted inliners. 
*BONUS: Get ride of the stamp and put, in the right place chronologically in the article, another classic image, like a painting. 
Judgesurreal777 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki-buraucrats tend to be rather heavy-handed (this is not meant to be a personal attack). The bulletted sections are lists and I see no reason to "prosify" them, they would make a poor text as single paragraph. The one-sentence paragraphs are appropriate for more or less the same reason. "New England" can't be merged anywhere, and the numerous sections convey a sense of structure that shouldn't be lost. I don't see what is wrong with black-and-white pictures. As a whole, if this is the price of the endeavour, I think it's better for the article not to acquire a good article status.--194.145.161.227 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a bureaucrat, I am just a regular wikipedian. It needs to be put into paragraph form so it will flow properly, and not be a bunch of disjointed statements. There are too many sections. I did not object to black and white images, I think there need to be more images. New England should be merged into a section called 19th century or something like that. This article does need a lot of improvement. Judgesurreal777 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It undeniably does, I would be especially happy to see the sources of the various descriptions of folk beliefs, for example; and all the fictional stuff had better be moved to vampire fiction. However, New England can't be merged into a section called 19th century, because nothing else happened during the 19th century (except for fiction, which belongs partly in another section and partly in another article). Both creating a "flow" and merging sections would, IMO, obscure the actual content - you are probably right in that it would make a better impression for a cursory glance, but it would be more difficult for an in-depth reader to actually keep track of the exposition, and that's what counts. --194.145.161.227 21:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps the first thing the article needs before copyediting is referencing and eliminating both original research and moving vampire fiction to the appropriate article. Would you be interested in helping do that to make this a good article? Judgesurreal777 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, I don't think I can help very much. I'm not that much of an expert, so I can't identify OR with certainty; and there is plenty of statements that I can't provide sources for. I don't have any specialised literature about vampires, except for a general encyclopedia of mythology. Maybe we should ask the original editors, although judging from the edit warring that I see was going on here in 2005, I'm almost glad not to have them around. As for moving to vampire fiction, I just moved "traits of vampires in fiction" to the other article. Since another editor has already recommended that recently, I think it is justified. 194.145.161.227 11:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: In Vampires page there is one small mistake in translation.
^ Glišić, Milovan, "Posle devedeset godina" (Twenty Years Later) 
"devedeset" means ninety, not twenty. 
twenty is "dvadeset". And I have no clue how to edit that.
:Error fixed.--194.145.161.227 11:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Twenty Years Later" title was based on this (see at bottom). Gimmetrow 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the footnote should say "sometimes erroneously referred to as..." with the given link as example? Gimmetrow 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be advisable if we had evidence that it is a common error (i.e. if we had a lot of links). The problem is, "Twenty" occurs only on that page, so it seems possible that it was just this one guy who got it wrong. And that's hardly notable enough to be included. --194.145.161.227 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough. Gimmetrow 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  error 

message: I removed the following paragraph and replaced it with a thoroughly sourced version.
The English word vampire comes from German Vampir (probably taken from Serbian in 1725, the year when the first vampire case was noted in modern history), in turn from early Old Polish *vąper'  (where ą is a nasal a, and both p and r'  are palatalized), in turn from Old Slavic *oper (with a nasal o) or Old Church Slavonic opiri. It is similar to Serbian verb piriti, "to swell", and to Greek apyros, "not undergone by fire". 
The paragraph was unsourced and self-contradictory (was it borrowed from early Old Polish or from New Serbian?). I found no sources for the Polish connection, and the fact that several sources claim the word first entered German and the West European languages in general in the early eighteenth century, in connection with the Serbian/Hungarian cases, seems to exclude the possibility of German having borrowed the word from Old Polish. Of course, if a source other than the Polish Wikipedia is provided, that theory can be mentioned. "Opiri" and "oper with a nasal o" look like amateur transcriptions/descriptions. As for perceived "similarities" with unrelated words, they seem to be poor OR. --194.145.161.227 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Removed text:
The word vampire only came into the English language in 1732 via an English translation of a German report of the much-publicized Arnold Paole vampire staking in Serbia. 
Some googling tells me that the 1734 occurrence attested by the OED was actually in a certain travelbook, "The Travels of Three English Gentlemen", where the authors claimed that their landlord in Laibach/Ljubljana believed in vampires. So I'm deleting it for the time being. The first German occurrences might well be in the Plogojowitz and Paole reports, but unfortunately, I haven't found a clear and reliable source for that either. --194.145.161.227 23:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First English attested use 

message: It is unnneeded, there is already a famous fictional vampire picture, dont need another one. Also, it is in the section of real vampires, which may make people believe this is about vampire fiction. Judgesurreal777 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lagosi image 

message: I have doubts about the reliablity of 4 of the references (one of which I added Ironically :) )
*
*
*
*
I think they should be replaced with other ones. Judgesurreal777 01:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why you have doubts about 1, 2 and 4, but what's wrong with number 2 (Massimo Introvigne)? It's quite scholarly, and contains even more scholarly references. --194.145.161.227 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err.. Did you say ironically? --194.145.161.227 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, Lets remove them except for that one, I wanted to see if anyone knew about their reliability. Judgesurreal777 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, as far as I remember, we didn't remove any facts, we just changed the sources that support them. So nothing is actually lost. As for the Straight Dope - well, I agree that the average quality of references in wiki articles is rather low, but one should always seek to improve things, shouldn't one? The Straight Dope has some disadvantages. It isn't an academical, peer-reviewed publication, it's written by anonymous people using the pseudonym Cecil Adams, in an alternative weekly... It is probably quite truthful, but not an actual authority on anything. Just that sort of "popular science" stuff, you know. I'm not saying that it's terrible, but I can see why it could be better to use other sources for the same facts. --194.145.161.227 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Quality 

message: Several things:
*This article has greatly improved since the review was initiated, going from 7 inline citations to 22, and the removal of a vampire image that was vampire fiction. It has also recently gone a long way toward expunging any vampire fiction that appears to have been rampant in the article in the past. 
I'll pass it, but before it goes anywhere near FA, it needs;
*At least twice as many inline citations from reliable sources, probably book sources as there aren't many non-viction vampire sources on the internet.
*expansion of the non-western vampire myths, such as ancient Babylon.
*another vampire folklore image.
*a copyedit to get the article flowing once all the references are in place. 
Congratulations to everyone who has worked on this article! Judgesurreal777 05:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a [[Wikipedia:Good Article|Good Article]] 

message: IMHO it would make better sense to include parts of the article Vamp (vampire) under the heading "Vampires in fiction and popular culture", and redirect that article here. // Habj 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it should be included in/merged with Vampire fiction, and redirected there. I don't see any reason for including it in this article, since Vamp (vampire) is about a term used in vampire fiction, and this article is about vampires in folklore and mythology. "Vampires in fiction and popular culture" is only a summary of the article about Vampire fiction, and a summary should only include the most important and notable information from the main article. /M.O (u) (t) 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with me. // Habj 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Vamp (vampire)]] here? 

message: There is an advert presently to be found on London Underground trains that leeches are killed by garlic. I presume this piece of information is true - and if so, could it be the "reason" for the use of garlic against vampires? Jackiespeel 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeches, garlic and vampires 

message: Again, this section has begun to grow. Please note that this article in itself isn't supposed to go into depth about vampires in fiction/popular culture, a subject that has an article of its own. This article deals with vampires in folklore and mythology. Any information regarding vampires in fiction should primarily be added to Vampire fiction, so please don't add it to this article unless it is exceptionally notable or important. This section should summarize the contents of its main article, not present information that's not to be found there. At this point, the section about vampire fiction differs a lot from its main article, and that's not how it is intended. I write this as a reminder to focus on the correct articles, ie Vampire fiction, to keep the quality of both articles up to par. I have added an HTML-comment about this to the code of this section, in order to remind those editors who don't read article talk pages about where the information should go. And as the next step, I suggest that we write a better intro for the article about Vampire fiction, that can be used to replace the text in this section. Thank you. /M.O (u) (t) 11:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder - Vampires in fiction and popular culture 

message: Perhaps it's just from modern reinterpretation, but I also think of it as part of the legend that vampires are afraid of crosses and sometimes also churches.  Any expert opinions? -- Beland 00:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, that is correct. (Although I'm not an expert, at least not in my own opinion.) But I have no sources for it. Anyway, the people of eastern Europe have been christians for a long time, and I doubt that the part about crosses and churches is a recent enough addition to be counted as anything else than part of the "proper" vampire lore. /M.O (u) (t) 00:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, good point.  Hopefully someone can locate some references; tagging this as an expansion point for the article. -- Beland 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian influence 

message: (I have never truly used wikipedia before so bear with me if I code something wrongly).  I was wondering, shouldnt a mention of actual true Vampyres who live day after day in real life be stated or mentioned in this article?  Shouldnt the difference between actual Blood Drinking Vampyres and Psychic Vampyres be mentioned in the article?  And shouldnt the rare disease "reinfelds syndrome" (sp?) be stated in this article too? (reinfelds syndrome (sp?) is when someone feels needs at certain times to drink blood for no reason, wether it be ther own or someone elses).  From, Dan (I am a Vampyre, that is why I am asking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.247.148 (talk • contribs) 
:In answer to all of your questions - No. If you're into games and role-playing, the article about Vampire lifestyle should be what you're looking for. This article is about "real" vampires, ie the undead creatures in east european folklore that never truly existed. /M.O (u) (t) 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Vampires/Vampyres