Talk:Vampire/Archive 1

message: Is this complete nonsense?
:See also Leechism, Louseism, Chiggerism, Tickism, Mosquitoism.  Ortolan88
:: Is Chiggerism when bored rich kids pretent to live in Chigwell? -- Tarquin
seems sensible to me Lir 20:54 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
----
The vampirism and vampire subculture articles could be combined into one article. --Ed Poor
----
Lir, let's try to distinguish between the mainstream accepted biological concept -- and the legendary bite-the-pretty-girl-on-the-neck spiritual concept. Making that distinction would improve the article, and you're just the girl to do it! (And if you refuse, please don't say "Bite me!") --Ed Poor
-------
"Vampiric cults have been in existence throughout history". Pending cites, I'm going to believe this is bunk.
Obviously you aren't familiar with the common practice of human's eating each other in order to gain the powers of their enemy. Lir 21:15 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:Actually, I am. So, please add that to the article, if I may assign you work. --Ed Poor
"the common practice of human's eating each other in order to gain the powers of their enemy" -- Personally, I wouldn't call this "vampirism", I'd call this "cannibalism".
Ed -- please do not encourage Lir to make this article even murkier and less-informative!  Adding content will not help, when the added content only obscures different distinctions.
Lir -- you are referring to what English-speakers call cannibalism, not Vampirism.  Moreover, it is far from clear that cannibals uniformly or even generally eat others in order to gain their "powers," although this is sometimes the case.  There are other ways by which humans acquire the power of others -- e.g. the labor contract (do you consider capitalism a form of vampirism?) and, well, reading Jack Welsch's memoires, I guess.  Would you include a baby nursing?
My point: to take every form through which humans have gained the powers of others (reading books, nursing, cannibalism) and lunp them all together as a form of "vampiric cult" is both to misinform people of the tremendous diversity of ways of being human, to misinform people about vampirism, and to misinform (and perhaps insult) cannibals. Slrubenstein
Well, you people should know by know that I most certainly considered capitalism to be a form of vampirism. I have not equated cannibalism and vampirism. Lir 21:29 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
----
vampirisim is about more than drinking human blood Lir 21:31 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:Okay, please add material on what else vampirism means;
and drinking human blood is not necessarily vampiric Lir 21:32 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:and add material on cases of drinking blookd that is not vampiric,
:BUT please in all clases distinguish between the distinct groups of people who use the term differently.  Hollywood film directors, medical doctors, and self-identified vampires probably use the term differently and accord it different meaning.  As you add material please be careful to make clear what point of view you are informing us of, thanks Slrubenstein
::Sez you.  :-)   Let's see an NPOV article, please.
And, also, SLR, Lir is (mostly) right when she says, "For npov satisfaction always try to include others statements rather than deleting!" Let us all keep in mind that serious writers disagree on whether Vampires are "real" -- even though some authors such as Anne Rice plainly regard the subject as fiction. --Ed Poor
::You just think that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts...Lir 21:57 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:I delete only what is patently false or so vague as to be meaningless.  I have no objection to anyone adding more specific and accurate information to the article.  But you cannot write -- whether it is your own paper or an encyclopedia -- without deleting. Slrubenstein
::Due to an edit conflict, you may have missed my suggestion that Lir highlight (not obscure) the distinction between vampirisim in animal biology (vampire bat, vampire beetle); primitive belief in gaining energy from eating dead enemy's flesh; and the various (legendary) beliefs and practices which border on fiction (Dracula, Anne Rice novels). I join you in disdaining murk and applauding information. :-) Ed Poor
----
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=vampiric+plant
nuff said
Lir 21:59 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=vampiric+leech
way more than nuff said
Lir 22:00 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
----
Ed, I did miss your comment, thank you for calling it to my attention.
Ed, Lir, and others: Here is an example of what I think is a necessary deletion, to make the article better:
:It can also be used to refer to leeches, mosquitos, various plants, or the like, which prey upon the blood or sap of other creatures. 
I do not doubt that some people refer to leeches (and even some bats!) as vampires; I only point out that they do so metaphorically (the websites above Lir links to prove my point), and that to include this in the article clouds the issue and puts the cart before the horse.
It is generally known that many organisms live by feeding off of other living organisms.  The correct term for this is "parasitism," and to call it "vampirism" is misleading at best.
If you want to argue that "vampires" are one form of parasite, fine.  But to identify parasites as forms of vampires is just absurd.  An encyclopedia must aspire to some standards, you know. Slrubenstein
----
But Slr--when I demand that we name the Lunik I spacecraft according to it's correct technical name, everyone says, "Oh but on wikipedia we place the common terminology even higher than the technical!" 
Besides, did you know that the siphoning ability of mistletoe is interesting enough that it is specifally called, "the vampire plant" by some scientists, including myself? THAT GODDAMN PLANT IS VAMPIRIC! What about the mythology of vampiric plants? (And vampiric dogs toO!) Lir 22:09 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:Lir, I think you are right about vampiric plants, etc. Please include a section in the article about the biological POV. --Ed Poor
I am not allowed to. SLR has deleted my text. Lir 22:11 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
Lir do not be a baby -- "I am not allowed to"  I deleted your text because it was vague and misleading.  If you want to put in a section on "Vampiric plants and animals," with a clear and explicit discussion of how any why these plants and animals are so labeled, by all means do so.  And then I will suggest not deleting but dividing the article into two seperate articles, one on vampiric plants and animals (which could presumably explain their behavior in terms of selective forces and their functioning within an ecosystem), and another one on vampirism among humans (which from what I have read so far is explained in completely different terms).  I will continue to delete crap.  But I guess I have a higher opinion of you than you have of yourself, because I am absolutely certain that you are capable of writing stuff that isn't crap, and that will not be deleted. Slrubenstein
I am sorry slr-I can not conceive what is wrong with
It can also be used to refer to leeches, mosquitos, various plants, or the like, which prey upon the blood or sap of other creatures. 
As you see, the term vampiric/vampirism can be used (as in regards to) various creatures (say mosquitors for instance, or leeches, or certain plants) which prey upon the fluids of other creatures. 
I mean, hey, maybe your ability to determine what is and isn't crap, is itself crap. Lir 22:20 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:Maybe!  But you defined vampirism as involving the gaining of supernatural power or qi.  Do you mean, then that leeches and missletoe seek supernatural powers?  Sorry, that is crap.  If there are other plants and animals that are "vampiric" in one sense, and people who are "vampiric" in another, I think two separate articles makes more sense.  But certainly, if you put the two sets of cases in one article, you must make the distinctions clear.  Otherwise, as I already said, it is misleading. Slrubenstein
If its misleading to you, then plz add clarifications so you are no longer confused. I certainly never thought that leeches sought supernatural powers. What an absurd notion. Lir 22:26 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
----
I suggest that the 2 of you take turns. SLR, why not be a gentleman and let Lir have the article for next hour? You and I can sit here on the sidelines and make helpful comments on the talk page. --Ed Poor
:Ed, I know you are trying to be constructive and I agree with you in spirit.  But there have been eight changes to the article (including a couple made by Lir) since my last change, and given this fact your comment seems a bit patronizing.  I think Lir have had a pretty constructive discussion through which some important points have been made -- I try to be even clearer, below.  (I am sorry if Lir disagrees, and sorry that you seem to disagree, Ed), Slrubenstein
::I have nothing more to add to the article at this point. Im just waiting for SLR to figure out what was so confusing and crappy about my sentence. Lir 22:30 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
:Lir, I was perfectly clear about what was crappy about what you wrote: it followed a general definition of "vampirism" that defined it in terms of the quest for qi.  Please, before you add text read what comes before and after -- often times the meaning of an utterance is determined by its context.  I am glad that you agree with me, that to claim that leeches seek supernatural powers is an absurd notion.  That is precisely why I deleted the claim.  If you want to contribute material on "vampirism" in plants and animals you must do so in a way that makes it clear that it has nothing to do with the quest for qi.  As I states, I think such material belongs in a separate article.  As I stated, the dangers of readers of this encyclopedia lumping the two phenomena together (missletoe and leeches, versus humans who consume blood for religious or metaphysical reasons) must be avoided.  Why do you disagree with me?  Or have you had enough time to figure it out? Slrubenstein
It wasn't so bad. But there are now 5 different people editing this article simultaneously. It would be better if we discussed disagreements, rather than deleting text. There is no harm in letting a "competing" version stay up for a few minutes. --Ed Poor
----
I'd like to add something the following:
*In biology, vampirism is ...
*And mention the Vampire Plant (mistletoe) plus the vampire bat and vampire beetle.
Let's also distinguish between 
*vampirism in nature as observed by biologists
*folklore and made-up stories about vampirism
*substantial, serious belief about gaining spiritual or other power through drinking human blood, eating *yecch* human flesh, or whatever --Ed Poor
:Ed, I think this is very constructive -- good job.  I would only add that if we keep all of this stuff in the same article (I suggest two separate articles, but if other contributors prefer one, okay by me), that it be clearly divided into at least two major sections (as used by biologists applied to non-human species, and as used by people concerning people), with a general introduction that explains the differences between the two sections. Slrubenstein
----
Following on some remarks by SLR above:
#I don't know what "patronizing" means; I am telling you to be nicer to Lir: she's young and sensitive.
#If you confuse the person you're trying to educate, it's not "constructive", so I appreciate your efforts to be clearer (see also my detailed suggestions above).
#I have no idea what you think I disagree with :-) --Ed Poor
Is Lir kidding when she says "You just think that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts...Lir"? -- Tarquin 23:20 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
No. Lir 23:23 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
----
Considering how fleshed-out the main vampire article is right now, this article seems pretty redundant.  I vote that any non-duplicate content be merged from here to there, and this article be made a redirect to the vampire article.  Thoughts? -Sean 08:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over a month and nobody seems to have an opinion one way or the other. I still support m,erging the article into vampire; any objections? -Sean Curtin 17:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold and merged vampirism into vampire. -Sean Curtin 23:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Untitled discussions) 

message: Auric the Rad's Vampire watermelon hoax strikes the right tone... Wetman 07:03, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auric the Rad's 

message: Suppose there was just one vampire. Then, each vampire bites one person a week, and the person being bitten becomes a vampire. After one week, there are 2 vampires. After 2 weeks, there are 4 vampires. After 3 weeks, there are 8 vampires. After 4 weeks, there are 16 vampires. It will take only 33 weeks for the enitre world population to be made out of vampires!
:Not all vampiric mythology states that a vampire feeding off you makes you one of them.  Falcon
:You're also assuming that there are no vampire predators. Auric The Rad 22:57, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
:For comparison, consider this article, which proves statistically that the world should have been chin-deep in houseflies decades ago. --Paul A 02:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "proof" is formulated in vain (vein?) my friend, for I am a vampire. mnemonic 22:13, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
There is a Far Side cartoon of a guy walking past a huge mirror and seeing that everyone but him is invisible... Mark Richards 22:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Vampires don't usually, according to most myths, legends and other lit I've read turn their victims into vampires by feeding on them. That act is called "the blood kiss" and has to be specially bestowed, it's a bit different from feeding. If anyone could find more info on "the blood kiss" it would probably make a good addition. 66.185.84.81 05:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof that there are no vampires 

message: There's an article at Vampire bat.  Why not just link to that and remove the section here?  RickK | Talk 05:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampire bats 

message: ====Sunlight====
Generally considered the one certain method of destruction, usually leading to spontaneous combustion, but vampires in Buffy have escaped with mild smoking effects, and Warhol, inconsistent as ever, largely ignores the tradition. Certain movies have allowed a drop of blood on the ashes to be enough to restore the vampire, suggesting there is no final disposal....
So you'd be going with the consensus, and recording major dissenters. Again, wikilinks should avoid duplication. But enough from me, let's see what others think ... Heenan73 12:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not alot. Light covers a broad band, and only certain wavelengths have any effect. these are all found in Sunlight, but not (much if at all)  in reflected light. That's why 'bright light' might well be a waste of time - but bright natural light - ie sunlight will be effective. I've been trying to reduce this stuff to actual wavelengths, but no success as yet!  Heenan73 10:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Destroying vampires

message: Generally considered the one certain method of destruction, usually leading to spontaneous combustion, but vampires in Buffy have escaped with mild smoking effects, and Warhol, inconsistent as ever, largely ignores the tradition. Certain movies have allowed a drop of blood on the ashes to be enough to restore the vampire, suggesting there is no final disposal....
So you'd be going with the consensus, and recording major dissenters. Again, wikilinks should avoid duplication. But enough from me, let's see what others think ... Heenan73 12:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not alot. Light covers a broad band, and only certain wavelengths have any effect. these are all found in Sunlight, but not (much if at all)  in reflected light. That's why 'bright light' might well be a waste of time - but bright natural light - ie sunlight will be effective. I've been trying to reduce this stuff to actual wavelengths, but no success as yet!  Heenan73 10:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunlight

message: "It is believed that vampires have no reflection, as traditionally it was thought that mirrors reflected your soul and creatures of evil have no soul. Fiction has extended this belief to an actual aversion to mirrors, as depicted in Bram Stoker's novel Dracula when the vampire casts Harker's shaving mirror out of the window."
This "aversion" doesn't seem like a distinct belief added to the folklore, but rather a natural consequence of three other beliefs:
# Vampires have no reflection
# Vampires are intelligent
# Vampires do not want to be recognized as vampires
130.94.161.238 18:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The listing of powers and origins for various fictional vampires belong in those fictions' specific articles rather than in the main vampire article. This article is already fairly lengthy, and already links to the various fictional vampires. -Sean Curtin 21:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirrors