Talk:Vampire/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Disambig

Voodoo and Wild rose need disambig. Randomblue (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This bit is wrong

Re this bit: 'After Austria gained control of parts of Serbia and Wallachia, officials noted the local practice of exhuming bodies and "killing vampires"' I would just like to mention that Wallachia was never at any time part of Austrian territory or even Austro-Hungarian territory. It was Turkish territory and then Romanian. Colin4C (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the passage to specify northern Serbia and eastern Wallachia (Oltenia). Pi zero (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems it was under Austrian rule for 21 years - 1718-39 - until the Treaty of Belgrade returned it to the Ottoman Empire. But I guess that was time enough to unearth a few vampires...Colin4C (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Slobodan

I went to comment on this at the FAC page and I saw that it'd been promoted. Congratulations to the editors! It's very well-done, but I still have one issue that I want to follow up on. I expressed concern on the FAC page about the claim that Slobodan Milošević was staked. I think this is a really extraordinary claim, and that it originates with an un-bylined Ananova story concerns me. None of the sources I saw had a named source, other than the supposed vampire hunter himself (and sometimes not even that), attesting to the fact that this happened. That's fishy. If this were a real story would absolutely nobody in the world have quoted a police official confirming the story? No major reliable sources appear to have covered the story. I'm just not convinced that it's true. --JayHenry (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I am also cutting-and-pasting awadewit's last comments so we can polish them up a bit too.

Awadewit's concerns (just to tidy up)

• I agree with Karanacs that one more go around with a copy editor to reduce wordiness would benefit the article enormously. I did just a little. I would suggest asking someone who has not worked on the article - who has spent hours staring at these sentences. :)

• The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first appearance of word vampire in English from 1734, in a travelogue entitled Travels of Three English Gentlemen which was published in the Harleian Miscellany in 1745.[3][4] Many mentions of the subject had been made in German literature. - There needs to be a transition between these two sentences.

(I tried..)

• Several theories of the word's origin exist. - This sentence is sitting in the middle of the paragraph - it seems oddly placed. It is also not entirely clear whether it refers to the English word vampire or the word in all languages.

All languages. Sadly, someone deleted the older Turkic origin theory, mentioned elsewhere on this talk. --Anonymous44 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• (Note that many of these languages have also borrowed forms such as "vampir/wampir" subsequently from the West). - So how much less likely does this make the theory put forward that English derived its term from German which derived its from these languages, etc.?

It doesn't, there has never been any doubt about it. The borrowed forms can be recognized as very different from the original local ones: Russian has borrowed "vampir" vs original "upyr". The exact form "vampir" is only indigenous to a limited area, including parts of Serbia and Bulgaria.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• This apparently strange name has been cited as an example of surviving paganism and/or of the use of nicknames as personal names. - Is it "and" or "or"?

('or' works better on read-through)

• However, in 1982, Swedish Slavicist Anders Sjöberg suggested that "Upir' likhyi" was in fact an Old Russian transcription and/or translation of the name of Öpir Ofeigr - Is it "and" or "or"?

Upir' would be a transcription, and Ofeigr (=Likhyj) a translation. Dunno how to express it concisely.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• In most cases, vampires are revenants of evil beings, suicide victims, or witches, but they can also be created by a malevolent spirit possessing a corpse or by being bitten by a vampire itself. - This sentence just bugs me. I kept trying to find a way to word it better, but I couldn't. There must be one. All of the "be's" and "by's" are just no good.

• I wonder if something more interesting could be done with the captions, per WP:CAPTIONS. I have become a fan of interesting captions. (It is one place to put interesting details that had to be removed from the text.)

• As stories of vampires spread throughout the globe to the Americas and elsewhere, so did the varied and sometimes bizarre descriptions of them: Mexican vampires had a bare skull instead of a head,[26] Brazilian vampires had furry feet and vampires from the Rocky Mountains only sucked blood with their noses and from the victim's ears. - As the editors of this page are aware, I am against labeling one kind of vampire any more bizarre than another, particularly when that leads to a European/New World distinction. I think it has the appearance of POV. I will obviously not make this a condition of supporting the page, but I would encourage them to reconsider this wording.

(I am happy as is - bizarre for me highlights that these were markedly distnct from some of the european folkloric material.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• From these various legends, works of literature such as Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the influences of historical figures such as Gilles de Rais, Elizabeth Bathory, and Vlad Ţepeş, the vampire developed into the modern stereotype. - This is just the tiniest bit unclear - at this point in the article, the reader does not know who these historical figures are or what their influences might have been. That needs to be made clearer.

(added 'bloodthirsty' as they were all traditionally considered so.)

• During the 18th century, there was a frenzy of vampire sightings in Eastern Europe, with frequent stakings and grave diggings to identify and kill the potential revenants; even government officials were compelled into the hunting and staking of vampires. - Are we sure they were "compelled"? It is possible the government officials could have been the ringleaders. :) Instill fear in the populace and all of that.

(were compelled into --> engaged in - takes passivity out of it)

Well, at least their own reports to their superiors do present them as being passive. But of course, they might have been lying, and a vampire hunt is good for increasing in-group cohesion and the legitimacy of the authorities. --Anonymous44 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure what the purpose of the Voltaire quote is. I don't think it adds much to the article, unfortunately.

• I see we have switched from "World beliefs" to "Non-European beliefs" as a heading. I'm afraid that I don't think this is an improvement. As the "Asia" section is just as long as the Europe section, I'm not sure why we are setting up this polarization of West and non-West. What about establishing a section of "Vampire beliefs" and puting "Ancient", "Europe", "Africa", "The Americas", "Asia", and "Modern" under it, making less of a Western/non-Western distinction?

(I am happy with it this way, as the european material is a mix of a cohesive set of folklore beliefs and later fiction. Outside this, the legends (and creatures) grow much more diverse, and have different antecedents.) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a few. I'll wait till spawny logs on to figure out what we do with the rest. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother waiting for me - I've lost all hope. We had an excellent article and now it's been utterly mutilated for the sake of a few kilobytes. Whatever happened to WP:IAR? Who cares if the WP:SIZE page says articles should be all alike? It's really annoyed me. I'm stoked and all, but I'm just feeling a bit defeated now. I'll send out my thank you notes etc, but don't expect me to be on for a while. If you really wanted to bring anything of the old article back, you could try and put some of the slavic etc text back in (Summarised of course) and take some of the 18th century controversy out, since it's already fully covered on the subpage. But that's just from someone who nobody has listened to from the beginning of the FAC anyway... *Sigh* Spawn Man (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

the word is not swedish 4 sure --192.87.23.70 (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)shehd

Porphyria

The porphyria page mentioned that a certain David Dolphin suggested a link between vampirism and this group of diseases (due to abnormalities in the haem synthesis pathway). While this is easily disproven, this factlet has commonly led to porphyria being mentioned in one breath with vampirism. Perhaps worth a mention? JFW | T@lk 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, porphyriacs were not best pleased with Dr Dolphin JFW | T@lk 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! I researched this bit and had a little paragraph that I removed to summarise. Anyway, there it is. Given the prominence of porphyria in popualr origins of vamp belief and the airplay it got in the last 20 years I figured it required a subsubsection itself. Thanks for pointing this out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There was something on A&E where it was stated that "But the condition (porphyria) describes the wrong vampire" (ie the vampire of film). I'll have to go back and see if that was the narrator or one of the many experts they had on the program.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AIDS

Okay, the weirdest question about vampires ever. You can already probably guess what it is, but still: Can Vampires get AIDS if they drink the blood of a person w/ AIDS? Thecutnut (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like such a geek for knowing this, but... There was an episode of Forever Knight in which the vampire population was being destroyed by a plague, utterly lethal to vampires, that had been created by humans as an unsuccessful cure for AIDS. The cure for vampires turned out to be drinking the blood of a human with AIDS. Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Belief in vampires stems from an time before HIV even existed, so there is no answer in traditional folklore. Asarelah (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... very interesting... --Luigifan (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

you can imagine cause asarelah said it didnt exsist then--192.87.23.70 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC) shehd

Milosevic story removed

and in March 2007, self-proclaimed vampire hunters broke into the tomb of Slobodan Milošević, former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia, and staked his body through the heart into the ground. Although the group involved claimed it was to prevent Milošević from returning as a vampire, it is not known whether those involved actually believed this or if the crime was politically motivated.

There are no mentions of this in any reputable newspaper which leads me to believe it was a hoax.It can be readded if something turns up. I trawled through google refs and nothing looked like a RS. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kolchak the Night Stalker

The article mentions Kolchak as "the Dan Curtis 1874 television series Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Does the TV series really date back to the 19th century? Should I inform IMDB that they've got the date wrong?

Yeah, smartass comment, but I can't edit the article myself... Zaku kai (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Not only was the date wrong, but the link to the Kolchak: The Night Stalker article was wrong, and the date is given as 1974 on that page. --clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers

Something I find this article lacking is a list of the vampire's abilities... I know it's pretty inconsistant with every depiction of vampires there are, but I think at least some of the more common or popular abilities should be listed. The ones I can recall from the top of my head are:

• Blood draining abilities (to simply feed, to restore power or to create a new vampire).
• Various transformations (bats, mist and strangely wolves).
• Immortality (or rather perpetual youth).
• Enhanced physical abilities (strength, speed, durability, stamina).
• Magic (necromacy, hypnotism and the ability to make thunder crack whenever Dracula introduces himself).
• Flight (a paranthesis is excessive in this case... Ooops).

Well, can someone come up with anything else? 81.228.148.36 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, weaknesses would be great to see added--especially the origin and differences between mythos. Examples include: Sun, can't enter house w/o invitation, garlic, holy signs, holy water, crossing running water to name as few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.239.66 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Many are mentioned through the text, Cntrl-F is good for finding things. Many are only mentioned briefly as they belong more to fictional vampires, and more down the bottom of the article. Those before then were more like revenants. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about vampires to tell you the truth the onley things I know about vampires are these things - They drink blood. - They can read minds.(got that from twilght) -tell the future (twilight) And thats all I know and most of them were from twilight- movie

Twilight578 (edward cullen and bella swan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight578 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Twilight doesn't go along with most of traditional and widely know (apart from itself) myths and characteristics about vampires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.23.201 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The only things that Twilight got right were the bloodlust, and the venom. The other stuff is fictional. THe character that could "tell the future" was originally insane, and was most likely having premonitions, something that many normal humans have.

Twilight should not be considered a legitimante source for vampire knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WolvenheimIAR (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The non-fiction books at the back of GUPRS Blood Types (many of which are used as references in this article) are far better than Twilight as reference material:

• Barber, Paul (1988) Vampires, Burial and Death (Yale University Press)
• Bunson, Matthew (1993) The Vampire Encyclopedia (Crown Publications) (used 12 times)
• Melton, J. Gordon (1994) The Vampire Book (Visible Ink Press)
• Summers, Montague (1928) The Vampire, His Kith and Kin (Routledge and Keegan Paul)
• Summers, Montague (1929) The Vampire in Europe (Routledge and Keegan Paul)
• Twitchell, James B, (1975) The Living Dead: The Vampire in Romantic Literature (Duke University Press)

I would so as far as to say what most people know about vampires comes more from a mixture of Stoker's Dracula, Schreck's Nosferatu, the Universal Picture films of the 1930s and 40s, and Hammer pictures of the 1960s and early 70s then anything out of actual tradition and mythology. Films have created a new folklore for the vampire--one that is very unlike what people actually believed about them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-Undead Vampire Analogy

The "undead" concept is because the human basically dies. The vampire "curse" as it is known, is considered so because the human victim has been overtaken by something that could be called a virus, or parasite, or even something else. Personally, I say it's a demonic thing that works a bit like a virus to begin with.

Cancer usually starts off as a mark, spot or tumour on or inside the body, and it spreads. If it's caught early, then it can usually be treated and eventually cured. If left, it just spreads and the patient will inevitably die. When a person is turned into a vampire, whether it's a single bite that injects the curse/virus that causes it, or whether it's the vampire bites and then makes the victim drink his/her blood as well, it's a similar concept. However, usually the transfer is so quick that if any kind of cure was available there wouldn't be enough time to stop it. On the other hand, if you go with Bram Stoker's analogy, it takes some time (or several bites to quicken the process) for the person to be completely changed. In this case, a curative is possible if caught in time. If not a curative, then you kill the vampire that's bitten the victim in the first place (which holds absolutely no clarity in my eyes).

In Resident Evil, the T-virus KILLS the victim and then raises them as mindless undead that can think only of sustaining themselves. Vampirism is something completely different. Yes, in most cases they have the tendency to have a voracious appetite for blood that can't be satisfied, but as I have mentioned several times before, they don't HAVE to feed all the time like zombies do. In a book I read by Anne Rice, the longest a vampire went without being absolutely desperate for blood was about a month. Creatures like alligators can go entire seasons without food when there's nothing available, providing they've gorged themselves when it IS available. It's a simple fact that something that is dead has to continually replenish its sustenance - except whilst it's sleeping - because otherwise it'll just continue to rot. That's why as soon as zombies wake up, they drag themselves around trying to find food. Make sense?

I have a theory that reflects that of caterpillars and butterflies. Human victim, vampire bites, venom/virus starts to take over. The human then becomes something of a vampire cocoon. When the process is complete, a vampire is the result

Weaknesses are another thing. Everyone portrays the undead as being weak against things like water, and sunlight, etc. For zombies, their souls are gone and therefore they are simply animated corpses. Sunlight for them, well, it's pretty much the same concept as vampires yes, but there's a difference. Why are these creatures, living or dead, considered to be vulnerable to sunlight? The sun is in the sky, Heaven is in the sky (somewhere), the sun gives out light, and God's element is therefore light. They're no longer normal, and they're no longer creatures of life, and God is the giver of life. Vampires, on the other hand, are demonic by nature. Demons aren't creatures of God. They're generally against God, and God destroys His enemies. So, as vampires are considered thus, sunlight becomes a weakness of theirs. Water is something different. I'd say vampires are only weak to water that is blessed. There are different concepts, and I go with the ones that are most logical and have the most clarity.

Just because something can't be explained, or can't be explained very easily, doesn't mean it should always be bunged into the same category as something else because it has a few similarities. It's the same if you think about a vampire's biological structure. Wild carnivores such as wolves, lions, tigers and all manner of other animals all eat raw meat. They don't have the ability to build a campfire and cook it by turning it on a spit, so they were created (or in some people's cases evolved) with the ability to digest the meat in its raw form. We humans though, can't digest most raw meats because we don't have the friendly bacteria or enzymes to deal with it. Therefore we have to cook it. Vampires can be thought of in much the same way. They have human form, but perhaps their internal systems have a different structure altogether which means their diet is that much different as well. This can give clarity as to why vampires don't always have to be considered as undead.

DanceofIllusions_maj 19/03/2008DanceofIllusions maj (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your personal theory doesn't really have a place here. Wikipedia is for verifiable information published in reliable sources. We can't take your ideas and incorporate them into the article, and the talk page here isn't the place to expand on them. -- Kesh (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavic etymology too much of a coincidence

Isn't it a bit unlikely that the word Vampire comes from a word related to a word for "bat", when the connection between vampires and bats only arose centuries later when vampire bats were first discovered by Europeans in South America? iirc another theory proposes it comes from a Turkic word meaning witch or sorceror. That sounds a bit more likely to me. --86.135.218.31 (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember something like this as well. I think Chuvash in particular was mentioned as a source. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A well-sourced alternative etymology certainly sounds worth mentioning; and there does seem to be a question begged here as to how far back the bat/vampire connection goes in folklore. The article doesn't say that the connection between vampires and bats is recent, though — it says that the connection between vampires and vampire bats is recent (late 1700s). The section on "Folk beliefs/Description and common attributes" says vampires were reported to be able to transform into bats; the bat-cognate etymology wouldn't really be suspicious unless those reports post-date the zoological naming. Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the "upyr" theory sounds more likely; nobody denies that the Western languages borrowed the word from Slavic, but it is possible that Slavic borrowed it from Turkic. Vampires and witches are very similar in the original folklore, and Chuvash also has protehtic "v": Chuvash vupăr or vopăr like Kazakh ubyr. But as far as I remember, the theory is impopular today; that fact was indicated in the text at one point, so someone decided to delete all mention of the theory altogether.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's even more confusing though. I just find it to be an astonishing coincidence that there was even any question of a specific link between blood drinking mythological creatures and bats in any old mythology, centuries before Europeans had any reason whatsoever to make that connection when they discovered actual blood drinking bats thousands of miles away on another continent. The only sensible explanation I can think of is that originally bats were only one of many creatures that vampires were associated with and that they only came to prominence as being especially vampiric after the discovery of vampire bats, with the other animal associations fading into obscurity as the myth solidified in it's modern form. --86.148.57.140 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If there never had been a kind of bat that drinks blood, a close association between bats and vampires wouldn't seem like a coincidence; one would simply ascribe it to the fact that — to use scientific terminology — bats are kind of spooky. Given a ready association with spooky imagery, you'd expect Hollywood to pick up on it. So perhaps the only astonishing coincidence here is that there turns out to be a kind of bat that drinks blood; and even that probably shouldn't be too astonishing. Homo floresiensis springs to mind. Pi zero (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

but is it really the case that bats are in any objective sense "spooky"? Maybe we've just come to think of them that way because of the existence of a kind of bat that drinks blood. I'm reminded of the scene in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom when Indy describes what are obviously fruit bats as "giant vampire bats". Seems to suggest that in the public imagination it is specifically the blood drinking aspect that gives bats a spooky/creepy vibe. --81.158.147.41 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact etymology is unclear .... The Serbian form has .... Among the proposed proto-Slavic forms are *ǫpyrь and *ǫpirь .... The first recorded use of the Old Russian form Упирь (Upir') is commonly believed to be .... bla bla bla ...

muahahahahhaa look these Kindergarten etymology, full with Slavic lies. You can tell this shit to those, who taught you to lie always when you open your mouth, namely to your parents. --User:!i!i!i!i!i! 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Vampires?

It says clearly in the Asian vampires section that there were no Japanese vampires in there history and that the first time it appeared in cinema was the 50's. well I seem to remember a ancient form of Japanese vampire that could take off its head, and the head would float around and suck blood or something. Does anybody else know about this? Yojimbo501 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they were from the Philippines and Malaysia, not Japan - they are described in the Vampire#Asia section. Thanks for asking (I am glad someone is reading the page) :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber. I actually got it wrong I was thinking of the Nukekubi, kind of simmilar though, dont you think? Yojimbo501 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I geuss I was just wondering why that wasn't included.Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't seem similar at all, probably. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

REALLY????!!!! I never knew that I mean I never knew there were japanse vampires. Thanks for posting that Yojimbo501

Twilight578 (edward cullen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight578 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

GURPS Blood Types points out (they get their material from some of the books used as references in this article) that most Japanese vampires seems to fit the demonic spirit model rather than formal or existing mortals. The examples given are the Gaki and the Hannya (under Ghul) and also list the Kasha as another Japanese vampire but give no details.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

mention of my book?

Hello there. This is quite a useful, well-written entry. I wonder if, at the end of the last section of your article which discusses film and literature about vampires, if you might cite my book on the subject. It is generally taken to be a key resource. Gelder, Ken (1994) Reading the Vampire (London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-08012-6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subcultkg (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ken. I haven't seen the book. Featured Articles have inline citations, i.e. specific observations or syntheses which are supported by a reference. If you can see any conclusions which are uncited or add any that would be the best way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

please reinstate the image "Munch_vampire.jpg" - it now exists on en

Could someone please reinstate the image "Munch_vampire.jpg" (article is semi-protected), it has just been removed from the article with this comment:

Removing "Munch_vampire.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Giggy because: per w:commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Munch_vampire.jpg

The image was deleted from Commons but reinstated on the english wikipedia, because it is public domain in the USA but not elsewhere (not in Norway for example). See [1]. Thanks. -84.223.78.227 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Variance in Russian mythology

In the Russian wikipedia, there are three articles which have some similarity to this one: ru:Вампир ("Vampir", the Russian interwiki link from this page) ru:Упырь ("Upyr"; the English interwiki from the Russian side goes to Upyr, which is a redirect to this page) and ru:Вурдалак ("Vurdalak", for which the English interwiki is Undead, but I'm not sure if that's entirely analogous).

The article says (translated):

The Upyr is roughly analogous to the vampire in European mythology and has much in common with the vurdalak of the Eastern Slavic tradition, but in the 19th century these creatures were yet starkly different in the national consciousness.

I'm no expert myself. Does anyone know anything about this? Currently in the English wikipedia, no such distinction seems to be mentioned. Esn (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly incorrect. "Vurdalak" is Russian 19th century poet Pushkin's literary distortion of the West Serbian-Croatian word "vukodlak" (thus South Slavic and not East Slavic), which in turn originally meant "werewolf" but had come to mean "vampire" by the 19th century. "Upyr", in contrast, is original East Slavic. "Va(m)pir" is Serbian and Bulgarian, possibly Hungarian, but not "European", and it is identical to "upyr" both etymologically and mythologically. Sure, there were some differences between East Slavic beliefs in "upyri" and South Slavic beliefs in "va(m)piri"/"vukodlaci", but this kind of beliefs represented a continuum even within each of these areas. --Anonymous44 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Great article

This was very well written and useful. I'm doing a research paper for class on mysteries. I doing ,as you may have guessed, Vampires. I hate to burst your bubble, but you do know that in romania the vampire legonds aren't true. If for some reason that I am wrong about this fact then disregard this message.

Have a lovely day! :)

• Thanks Brooke, the truth is a little more complicated than that...if only Werewolf was as polished...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I swear to god, the Wikipedia talk pages frequently beat anything The Onion could come up with...Janeinhouse (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Im my opinion Romanian vampires have a vested interest in spreading rumours of their non-existence: therefore expediting a rich pickings of virgins once Romania gains entry into the EU. Colin4C (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kali is NOT a vampire

The "Ancient beliefs" section contains an incorrect information. Kali is being described among with blood thirsty demons, which is a misunderstanding. Kali is a divinity in Hinduism, and she is not a demon or a demi-god. She is a goddess.

Hindu mythology can be understood correctly only with a fair knowledge of Hindu symbolisms. Kali is a symbol of a divine power whose every characteristic stands for a divine feature. Kali wearing skulls, or carrying a bowl of blood should be understood with that knowledge.

The wikipedia article on Kali can be referenced for further details.

Cuziyam (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest in the article vampire. It doesn't say Kali is a vampire, but that she was a blood drinking deity, one of many in ancient religions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There did seem to be a problem with the earlier sentences in that paragraph, which gave the impression that the examples would be 'revenants or demons', when in fact two of the examples are deities — Kali and Sekhmet. I've tried to relieve the awkwardness, though the first and second halves of the paragraph still don't seem to quite mesh cleanly. Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Casliber,

Thanks for your response. The article is really informative, well structured, and nicely present. So, a reader should not ignore such a good article due to a fallacy in a small fact on Kali. Removal of the incorrect information makes the article better. So, here are a few reasons about my suggestion to remove mentioning Kali from this article:

1. Kali is discussed in an article on vampire.

2. Kali is mentioned among with other demons and ghosts of India.

3. Writing about Kali as a blood drinking "deity" is a complete misinterpretation similar to writing that holy sacrement is the desire to drink blood of Jesus. I assume that this comes under wikipedia guidelines somewhere.

4. Kali is not just a "deity" in the Hindu religion. She is a "Godess". Writing her as a "deity" is similar to writing Jesus or Allah or Yehova or "the God in Heaven" as "deity" or "demi-god". There are so many deities in the Hindu religion. But, Kali is not one of them.

Cuziyam (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm. deity=goddess - the words are synonymous. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm. The Wikitionary provides the following definition for "deity":

god (plural gods)

A deity: A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers. A deity personifying or in charge of a specific matter. Poseidon was the Greek god of the sea. A male deity. ........

A supreme being; God, typically in some particular view or aspect.

So, "deity" is a "god" typically in some particular view or aspect, but not "God" in the complete sense.

Cuziyam (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if the cause of this discussion may actually be differences in how the words "god" and "deity" are used in different Wikipedia editors' dialects of English, in which case the matter isn't going to be resolved by quoting authorities, and we really ought to be trying to get to the substance of the matter. Meanwhile, though, since you do bring up the matter of sources: With great respect to our sister project Wiktionary, I don't think I'd trust it to be authoritative on such a fine point. The details you quote under the entry "god" are apparently alternatives under definition "deity", I don't think they're meant to be exhaustive, and the definition also goes on to say that "god" can mean "idol", which hardly supports the view that "god" is a more exalted status than "deity". (Actually, if I were a Wiktionary editor I'd be working right now on how to improve that entry.) Here's some info from a source reference work, the OED. The first definition of "god" is "deity". The second definition of "deity" is "god" (only because the first definition of "deity" is the property of being a god).

As I said, though, this may be a matter of differences between modern dialects of English, which I wouldn't expect to be refuted, nor illuminated, by the OED. In that regard, I note that in my own native dialect of English, "deity" is usually used as a synonym for "god" when discussing polytheistic religions, as a convenience to avoid any misunderstandings that might arise from the use of the word "god" with a lower-case "g" in a society where the prevalence of monotheism results in the expectation that it might be a misprint for "God" with an upper-case "G".

Since the information about Kali and Sekhmet is obviously relevant to the subject of examples of blood-drinking entities in ancient mythologies, the question we're discussing here is whether and how the paragraph should be rephrased. (I do wonder that the passage seems almost to suggest that Kali is only an ancient deity, as if Hinduism weren't an extant religion. I'm not certain if the passage is trying to be orthogonal to how modern Hinduism views Kali.) The only reason I'm not rushing out to make further edits to the paragraph right now is that I'm not yet sure that I fully understand all the nuances of the issue(s) at hand.

On a related note, if anyone has a good, solid scholarly source relating vampire mythology with the Eucharist, by all means let's try to work out where and how to weave it in. (Where would depend on the nature of the described relationship — ancient or modern, for example.) Pi zero (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a brief mention. a deity is a god, whether capitalized or not - both are terms ofr a divine being whether in a monotheistic or polytheistic culture. Would it help if we called Kali a goddess? I am not fussed really. I worked alot on this article to get it to FA, and if this is the main issue it is easily fixed. Many books about the origins of belief in vampires discuss ancient bloodsucking beings. Why I was proud of this article was that is wasn't just vampires have fangs etc. but I was able to get sources on the origin, both psychological, religious or whatever about the belief behind it. Anyway. If it is a mere matter of semantics and word substitution will solve it, I am all for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please point out which Hindu mythology or any other authentic Hindu scripture says that Kali sucks blood like a vampire. Thank you. Cuziyam (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm.. it says in the Kali article here and in the section thereafter that she drinks blood, just like in this article. I never said she sucked blood. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bunson, Vampire Encyclopedia says so. Not any Hindu mythology or scriptures.

Vampires drink human blood. In some stories, animals'. Please provide any authentic source of Hinduism, wherein Kali is said to have drunk human blood. Even in your quote of D. Kinsley, Kali has not drunk the blood of any human. He says that Kali drunk the blood of a demon who had the ability to be re-born when his blood is spilt. This is no way related to or resemble to vampirism (even if the understanding comes without knowing that the Hindu mythology needs to be understood with Hindu symbolism, or due to a chosen carelessness). The difference is as clear as that between a fish and a lion.

You inform that you have never said that Kali sucks blood. You also know that Kali is no revenant (a human died and came alive). So, Kali is neither a blood sucker nor a revenant, then why mention Kali in an article that talk about vampires?

If blood drinking (even as a symbolism) can be leveraged to be mentioned in an article on vampire, then Christianity that practices sacrament can be mentioned in this list. In the same manner that Kali is understood as a blood drinking "deity", then Christians can be understood as those who drink the blood of Jesus.

In addition, vampires are, in a way, revenants - either the people who died and reborn in the same body (ex: Dracula) or takeover other's dead body. You may want to mention in this article on vampire that in the mythology of Christianity Jesus has died on a cross and then came alive after three days. By mentioning this you are not actually saying that Jesus is a revenant. But, any reader will conclude that Jesus is a revenant. This should be avoided.

Cuziyam (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cuziyam - if you find referenced material on this last fact then I will be pleased to include it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Casliber,

Wikipedia is a respected encyclopedia that should not have any biased information. When we write about a religious entity, we should quote from authentic source that is valuable. The source quoted by is no way authentic. Please remove mention of Kali in the article of vampire.

Cuziyam (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from your emotional objection, what are you objecting to? The article is not saying Kali is a vampire, nor that she sucks blood. The fact she has drunk blood and is associated with death is not in dispute. She is not singled out for mention, but mentioned alongside many other goddesses who have similar associations. So, you will have to come up with a better argument than that one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My previous contentions clearly inform why a misguiding association should be avoided. I have given various examples to make it more clear. My examples compare Christianity and Jesus who can also be given such misguiding associations, and why they should be avoided to maintain the neutrality of this respected encyclopedia.

So far my request has been to keep the wikipedia article unbiased, and none of my various questions are answered yet. For example, to be mentioned in a vampire article an entity needs to be a revenant. Your article clearly mentions what qualifies an entity to be called as a vampire. To quote your own article,

"Vampires are mythological or folkloric revenants who subsist by feeding on the blood of the living."

On this basis, I repeat my earlier question, "as Kali is neither a revenant nor one who subsist by feeding on the blood of the living" what qualifies mentioning her in the article of vampire?

You accept that "The article is not saying Kali is a vampire, nor that she sucks blood." Then what makes her to be mentioned here?

The argument that "she has drunk blood and is associated with death is not in dispute" is completely filled with fallacies. (The argument suits more to mosquitoes than Kali.) These, though I have mentioned earlier, I repeat here.

Fallacy number one: She has not drunk the blood of a human as vampires are suppose to do. She had only known to have drunk the blood of a demon who had the ability to become alive when his blood is spilled. It is a demon, not a human.

Fallacy number two: Her association with death is not in the same manner as the association with vampires. The correct understanding should be that she is associated with death per se. It is death in its widest meaning, not restricted only to human death as with the case of vampires. Kali is associated with the Death in and of the Universe - not only the human. This is an attribute subscribed to any God that is considered as the ultimate power.

As per your argument that any entity that drunk blood and associated with death makes it a vampire, then any god that is known as non-vegetarian and has the ability to bring death is a vampire. I fear that makes almost all the known gods and godesses of almost all the religions as vampires.

So far you have not given a proof from any authentic hindu scripture as to Kali is a revenant and can only live by the blood of humen beings.

Your intention to find similarities is misguiding the users to think that Kali has similar attributes as a vampire. Such a comprehension would be absurd.

Wikipedia demands to avoid original writing.

Your argument that "Kali is not singled out" for slandering and has many other godesses alongside is not a convincing one either. Currently, my knowledge is restriced only to Kali and it is clear to me that mentioning Kali in an article on vampire is totally unwarranted.

I assume that the above questions and clarifications are not emotional, but rational.

In every way, mentioning Kali in the article on vampire is a misdemeanor to Wikipedia guidelines.

Wikipedia and its readers have the right to ask for authentic evidences and to demand removal of incorrect information.

Cuziyam (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The article also mentions bats and owls. Bats and owls aren't revenants either. Is it your contention that they are being slandered, and mention of them should be removed? Pi zero (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not raised any objection to any other facts that are directly related to vampire. This includes not only the bats and owls, but also the Bhuta or Pret details related to India. There is a direct relation relevant to these beings. That is not the case with Kali.

You are yet to answer any of my questions.

Removing incorrect information would make the article more mature.

Cuziyam (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this so important to you? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest everyone just ignore the crazy troll. Clearly drinking blood is a vampiric quality, there is no possible arguing with that. --86.148.57.140 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Pi zero (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The importance to keep Wikipedia unbiased and inline with facts is more important than anybody's self motivations.

Asking about motivation is the result of not assuming good faith and digressing from the discussion.

Please provide authentic Hindu sources to claim that Kali has vampire qualities or remove mentioning Kali from this article.

Cuziyam (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing as if vampires and Kali for that matter were or are real. They are mythical and the article, as all articles about fiction, discuss why and how people believe in such creatures. This is why Kali, Sekhmet and other entities with some commonality are mentioned. I am not sure how I can spell it out any more clearly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

People never believed that Kali has vampire qualities. So, your "why" and "how" are completely unrelated and factually incorrect. If there is any authentic scriptural or mythological evidence that proves that people believed Kali is a vampire or has vampire qualities, please provide.

Cuziyam (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to clarify this one last time. As part of a comprehensive overview, the article discusses the beliefs about vampires, and development of such beliefs. Hence, antecedents are discussed. I am not proposing Kali is a vampire. Many people would construe drinking blood as something akin to a vampiric quality. And 3rd party sources note the links. If you are disputing her drinking blood, the sources on the Kali article itself seem to be pretty clear on that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is at least peripherally relevant to note that beliefs about Kali have also evolved over the pertinent timeframe, and the passage here explicitly refers to only the "Ancient Indian goddess Kali". For example, the comment that Cuziyam made earlier on the nature of Kali — that Kali is not an aspect of a more exalted being — holds in some forms of Tantra, but, according to the article on Kali, in early writings (circa 300–600CE) Kali was portrayed as an aspect of Durga. Pi zero (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of motivations isn't always a digression. In some situations, it can promote mutual understanding and facilitate the wider discussion. Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well...I have asked and I would be glad to hear what Cuziyam has to say on motivation. I have tried to explain belief/bigger picture/evolution of belief..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not a vampire in my learning either. All disputes over (capitalizations, words that offend and the like) theology etiquite aside, in neither formal nor informal studies of religion, I've never encountered any texts suggesting that Kali consumed or thirsted for blood. I suspect that sources on the subject will likely be "fringe" in nature. --Kuzetsa (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Twilight series correct choice?

{{editsemiprotected}} It is kind of absurd that Twilight is not mentioned in this article, while several other series without nearly as much notability are. Also, it seems strange to have the 21st century information before the 20th century information.

Suggest changing:
The twenty first century has brought more examples of vampire fiction, such as J.R. Ward's Black Dagger Brotherhood series, and other highly popular vampire books which appeal to teenagers and young adults. Such vampiric paranormal romance novels and allied vampiric chick-lit and vampiric occult detective stories are a remarkably popular and ever-expanding contemporary publishing phenomenon.[144] L.A. Banks' The Vampire Huntress Legend Series, Laurell K. Hamilton's erotic Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series, and Kim Harrison's The Hollows series, portray the vampire in a variety of new perspectives, some of them unrelated to the original legends. The latter part of the twentieth century saw the rise of multi-volume vampire epics. The first of these was gothic romance writer Marilyn Ross' Barnabas Collins series (1966–71), loosely based on the contemporary American TV series Dark Shadows. It also set the trend for seeing vampires as poetic tragic heroes rather than as the more traditional embodiment of evil. This formula was followed in novelist Anne Rice's highly popular and influential Vampire Chronicles (1976–2003).[145]
To:
The latter part of the twentieth century saw the rise of multi-volume vampire epics. The first of these was gothic romance writer Marilyn Ross' Barnabas Collins series (1966–71), loosely based on the contemporary American TV series Dark Shadows. It also set the trend for seeing vampires as poetic tragic heroes rather than as the more traditional embodiment of evil. This formula was followed in novelist Anne Rice's highly popular and influential Vampire Chronicles (1976–2003).[145]

The twenty first century has brought more examples of vampire fiction, such as Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series, and other highly popular vampire books which appeal to teenagers and young adults. Such vampiric paranormal romance novels and allied vampiric chick-lit and vampiric occult detective stories are a remarkably popular and ever-expanding contemporary publishing phenomenon.[144] L.A. Banks' The Vampire Huntress Legend Series, Laurell K. Hamilton's erotic Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series, and Kim Harrison's The Hollows series, portray the vampire in a variety of new perspectives, some of them unrelated to the original legends.

ItsDrewMiller (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Twenty first century has been marked by the birth of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Series and other highly popular vampire books which appeal to teenagers and young adults. Such vampiric paranormal romance novels and allied vampiric chick-lit and vampiric occult detective stories are a remarkably popular and ever-expanding contemporary publishing phenomenon."

While the Twilight series is recently popular and often in the news it's just a popular series. The wording implies an importance the series doesn't have for the trend. Perhaps either a rewording (to emphasize its popularity over its importance) or a listing of series which actually help mark vampire fiction in the 21st century. The article cited for the publishing pheomenon could be one source or another article could be found. --128.95.68.118 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Reworded that line, adding in a few other series references to take less emphasis off the idea that Twilight is the *new* vampire myth. ---- Wraithfive (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fiction is not mythology. There's a huge difference. I reworded it again to remove the claim of it being mythology. Mythology is religious beliefs of a culture features gods and goddesses and the like, not just stories somebody wrote up to entertain people. I'm not even sure most of the books mentioned on this article should be, as we have an entirely separate article to cover all that. This one should only be the most notable examples, and frankly the 21st century is too new to know which ones will be of any lasting importance. DreamGuy (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but you must admit, as... disturbing as it may be to many people, that Twilight has gained a following that in the first 8 years of the 21st century, makes it a notable example. IMHO, the others listed are in that same vein - LKH - love her or hate her, most people have at least heard of Anita Blake, and same with Kim Harrison and Rachel Morgan, though her Amazon reviews hint strongly at the belief that hers is more of a 'Vampire as a sidekick' story. as far as the mythology, you must admit that SM changed the whole mythology of what a vampire is with her book - most notably that they are NOT affected by things like sunlight and crosses and holy ground (though I don't think that actually ever came up). Even Kim Harrison makes the distinction between what she calls a 'Living Vampire' and an 'Undead Vampire', with the undead unable to come out at day or cross holy ground. ---- Wraithfive (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The expotential explosion of vampire literature publishing in the 21st century is very well known and well referenced. Further references can be supplied if anybody doubts what is going on in front of their eyes. And like her or loathe her Stephane Meyer is a phenomenon in her own right. If you listen to the cyber-ether she is bigger than Potter. Probably not great literature IMHO, but then neither was Varney the Vampire (or Potter IMHO). As for knowing what will be rated in the future, I think the wikipedia editors of the future can deal with that. Indications of notability include whether a film of the book has been made, whether it is a bestseller and whether it has garnered good reviews. Colin4C (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's so special about good reviews? Wikipedia:Notability (books) doesn't say anything about critical acclaim, just critical commentary. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixes are needed

I can't edit the article so... this sentence doesn't make sense "This increase of interest in vampiric plotlines led to the vampire being depicted in movies such as Underworld and Van Helsing, the Russian Night Watch and a TV miniseries remake of 'Salem's Lot, both from 2004." it used to say: "This increase of interest in vampiric plotlines led to the vampire being depicted in movies such as Underworld in 2003, the Russian Night Watch and a TV miniseries remake of 'Salem's Lot, both from 2004." but like its usual these "popular culture" sections are constantly bombarded by fanboys trying to mention their favorite fictional subjects. The chupacabras isn't in any way related to Mexico, they only adopted the myth, we don't list countries that adopt myths as "owning" them, otherwise this page would say the vampires of Europe, Asia, Africa... you get the point. Also can someone de-link "modern fiction" in the lead? that article has been deleted for some months by now. 24.171.201.221 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Delinked "modern fiction". Pi zero (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aargh - I hate keeping up with high traffic articles...will go over it again soon...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you see problems like that, go ahead and fix them. You don't always have to go the talk page for it. Asarelah (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

can you include like the superstitions related to vampires like where to find them and stuff like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.78.9 (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They have been moved to Vampire folklore by region, but you can see some in the article. I'm not happy with it being on a subpage either, but that's FAC for ya. Spawn Man (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

really because i think Twilight is awsome and so was this artical  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.189.188 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 

The albanian origin of the word; vampire.

The albanian word for vampire is spelled dham pir, the phonetics are exactly the same except for the e in the english version of the name. Dham pir simply means tooth drinker. No other language comes this close to actually translating the word vampire. This leads me to believe that the western form of the vampire myth has its origins in albanian folklore.

I would like someone to at least explain the albanian word dhampir in the article.--Durim Durimi (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC) twilight++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.83.126 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Albanian but nevertheless I guess that the word dhampir hasn't got anything to do with a 'tooth drinker' but a corrupted form of 'vampir'. Secondly there is no folklore or local traditional beliefs amongst the Albanians of such creatures (unless influenced by the Serbs who have ruled Albania for much of the Medieval period). Thirdly the word dham is clearly a loanword from Greek or Latin donti/dens respectively while the Albanian word for drinking pi is from the Serbian word piti. All in all my guess is the first explanation as 'vampire' later acquired the characteristic of a 'blood drinker' since the vampire's primal characteristic in all Slavic traditions is that of a corpse or a ghost that has come from the dead to wander the world. Also in Ancient Greek mythology there is a demon called Lamia that drinks human blood from his or her throat. Either way it has nothing to do with Albania or Albanians.

Also dampir in Serbian and other South Slavic languages means the son or offspring of a vampire. The "da" means "next to" or "beside" so someone who is offspring of a vampire or next (in generational terms) to a vampire.

Hey Mr. Slavo-Fanatic, here in Wikipedia is enough bullshit to misinform the people, so don't tell more bullshit here. Dhampir (Dham = teeth and Pir = drinker) is the original name of the corrupted and slavicized "vampire". Dhampir are evil creatures with sharp and long teeth, they biting the people and animals and drinking their blood . Tales from the Albanian folklore . But the knotted tongue of the Slavs, Romanians and Roma (Gypsies) kan not say the Albanian letter DH (DH = TH english .... The,Then,They,This,That etc.) so they usually replace it by the letter V.

If a Slav like you talks Albanian, he says Vam (?), because he is incapable to say Dham (teeth).

When the Slavs arrived in Europe they heard these tales from the Albanians, then they have changed, corrupted and slavicized the name Dhampir to "vampire", because they could not pronounce the original name Dhampir.

But you know what ? - You're right, vampire is Slavic ………. Asterix and Obelix were also Serbian (Slavs), Asterić and Obelić were called them in Serbian (slavian) "truth". Tssss... --User:!i!i!i!i!i! 04:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins of vampire beliefs:Vampire bats

The section Origins of vampire beliefs:Vampire bats contains the following:

"Vampire bats are small creatures and have never been used in the film industry;"

This seems a little strong to me... even if cited. First, it needs at least to be qualified (I'm sure a vampire bat has been filmed somewhere for some purpose.. maybe not for the portrayal of a vampire, but still...). Second, even if qualified in that manner, I don't believe that Cohen could claim to know every use of every vampire bat of every film in every country ever. There is better wording for this I'm sure...WDavis1911 (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The section has: "Though the literary Dracula's flying shapeshifted form was originally described as merely bird- or lizard-like, it was not long before vampire bats were adapted into vampiric accoutrements; they were used in the 1927 stage production of Dracula and the resulting film, where Bela Lugosi would transform into a bat.[124]" The first part of this is flat-out wrong -- Dracula is explicitly described in the novel as turning into a bat. For example:

"He can transform himself to wolf, as we gather from the ship arrival in Whitby, when he tear open the dog, he can be as bat, as Madam Mina saw him on the window at Whitby, and as friend John saw him fly from this so near house, and as my friend Quincey saw him at the window of Miss Lucy."

Throughout the book, bats are mentioned. I don't recall any scene where we "see" Dracula transform to or from bat shape, but the clear implication is that he is the bat in these scenes, and Van Helsing confirms it in the above quote. Further, vampire bats are mentioned twice in the novel, once by Quincy, who says that a favorite horse of his was killed by them, and later by Van Helsing.

In light of these, and in keeping with the "be bold" guideline, I am changing the section. 67.235.194.244 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Horror and Mystery of the Wikipedia...

Anybody got any idea what this sentence from the article is meant to mean?:

"Others, such as L.A. Banks' The Vampire Huntress Legend Series, Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series, and Kim Harrison's The Hollows series, portray the vampire in a new light, while not focusing exclusively on it."

Just wondering how one focuses (or not...) on a "new light"...and whether such exposure is detrimental to a vampire's health...Colin4C (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, only if it is sunlight...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictionality

I've noticed that this page has had a lot of off-topic posts along the lines of "I'm a vampire ...", "This article is inaccurate, real vampires ..." or "Who wants to RP? Contact me at ...". IMO we should add a talk header saying something along the lines of "We're pretty sure vampires aren't real, and even if they are, according to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Fringe theories, such an exceptional claim would require corroboration by a reliable, independant source. We're an encyclopedia, not a roleplaying forum, tabloid or scientific journal. Irrelevant, off-topic posts and discussions, such as in-character posts or posts claiming to provide the "truth" about "real vampires", may be removed.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

...I know..I have sifted through occasionally and more. You ain't seen the 'alf of it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Origins of vampire beliefs -- merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

articles merged

---

Origins of vampire beliefs doesn't have any notable encyclopedic, properly sourced information that isn't already in this article, so I suggest that if there's anything of any value it get brought back over here and the WP:FORK gets deleted or redirected back here. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We did that as we had really hit the ceiling sizewise for FAC - it has some psychodynamic material from Ernest Jones which is not here, and someone since added a Political Section. So I wouldn't (i.e. oppose). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If size is a problem, cut things out. There's very little there of any value anyway, and the stuff that is is STILL on this page, so a merge wouldn't make this article any longer anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's really true (I'm just trying to understand), why propose merging the other article into here, rather than proposing to delete the other article? Pi zero (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

When we got this article worked up for FAC, one of the aims I had was to promote/explain why people believed rather than 'vampires are..x' - i.e. to incorporate non-in-universe material. We hit a brick-wall sizewise at FAC and had to do some compromising. Traditionally, when an article reaches a certain size, that is when to create subarticles, which was done. Once I figure out how to use monobook and use Dr PDA's script size tool I can calculate exactly how much room there is to move. Dreamguy has offered his opinion, I am offering mine (i.e. there is some important non-in-universe material which could be moved back if size permits). Now to figure out monobook...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall noticing another case where a tag at the top of a section says "Main article: X", but then the referring section goes on to have a whole bunch of subsections that take up more than half as much space as the "main article" referred to (only compounded by the observation that in this case, a bunch of the non-redundant content in the other article is poorish). Could it be that the problem here is too much of this material in the Vampire article, undermining the other article's mandate? Perhaps an honestly short section under Vampire would be better than a long one that's in denial about not being complete, so that the issue would become clearly one of improving the other article, rather than giving up on it? I have occasionally wondered (as I gradually wrap my head around the social dynamics of Wikipedia) if the FA reward system has a blind spot for cliques of articles. Pi zero (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - this article is around 44kb readable prose, therefore we could actually squeeze in and merge. The sections not in the main article are Rabies, Psychodynamic understanding, and Political interpretation - alternatively Connections with werewolves could go to the subarticle. Pi Zero, which do you want to do? I gather you'd rather a merge? Also, I am not sure what you mean by blind spot for cliques of articles - the subarticle was after hitting a wall at FAC WRT size cosniderations, the idea being the subarticle could be expanded later - this is common - think of many disease and country articles which have greater focus in particular areas. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have notified a couple of wikiprojects for folks who may have an opinion, so we can leave open for a couple of days. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If it fits back in here, I'm willing to support the merge. It isn't really palatable to gut the section here on origins, and having most of the information duplicated is awkward for both articles. Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. Both articles are detailed enough and notable enough as stand-alone articles, with a "summary style" link from the parent. Axl (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should merge... for the amount of information that is in it that ISN'T in the main vampires wouldn't lengthen it too much more, and saves the reader time of rereading things that are already on the other one LexingtonStLexus (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No Merge - Hello all, I'm hoping I'm back for good. It was all very annoying all the article being cut up into little pieces so for size reasons and now you want us to put it back together again? There's just no pleasing some people eh.... The article should not be merged - it was decided in the FAC that it would be split, it will significantly increase the size of the parent article and it is perfectly notable to stand on its own. I do agree there needs to be a better summarized section in the main vampire article, but it was Cas Liber's role all those moons ago to take care of that. If the actual article is tidied up, I think thoughts of mergers will disappear, so if you could take care of that Cas, it'd be good. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just merge it for god sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.238.252 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged, theres no point splitting into multiple articles about the same thing, this article already has 50% of whats on the Origins of vampire beliefs article. Having a article that duplicates information isn't what wikipedia is about, one vampire article is enough, and having 2 different articles that constantly change, then we have to end up editing both articles (as they both contain a section on Origin of vampire beliefs). Completely unnecessary, if their are size problems then trim down the information to only whats cite-able, so its following wikipedia guidelines as well as meeting size restrictions. The Unbeholden (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Results of discussion: Request to merge Origins of vampire beliefs into Vampire: The result was merge, 4 vs 3 votes. Cleanup after paste/merge is added to the ToDo list

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

article length

OK, so we are now merged again. Not too fussed really. This was a tough article to reduce the size of as it was so multifaceted. As it stands, it is now more or less how it looked WRT broad subject headings before FAC, the only new bit is the section on comparison with werewolves, which to me seems to repeat some information elsewhere in the article and is a bit detailed. I have trouble seeing why this is necessary and could be reduced to a line or two. The references come from a book which was criticized on the talk page of werewolf too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A good portion of the information in that section was accurate (at least present in a number of other sources), despite the source not being the most reliable. More importantly, though, I don't know that most of it was very notable. In fact this article seems to have a lot of things that are true but not all that important for a main article on the topic. Some of these suggested origins go on way too long, especially as many of them are just opinions of people not too familiar with the legends in general and who have not been published widely. The whole piece could use some tightening up and editing down to give the important info faster. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Film section

The acclaimed 2008 Swedish movie Let the Right One In is a must include in the Film section. 217.132.25.121 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I loved it too. There are so many to choose from and so little space...luckily there is a Vampire films article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Autovampirism

Since "Autovampirism" redirects here, I think there ought to at least be a section on it. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of the word vampire

Those of you who have ventured onto the Serbian version of the article (not many I suppose) can see that the word is of Slavic origin as the word had nothing to do with bats, witches or the like and even more with Tatars and Turkic peoples but with funeral rites which is very prevelant and important in Serbian and Slavic pagan religion and beliefs in general because of ancestor worship. The original word is 'upir' as we can see (on the Serbian version) that there are many other variations such as 'lampir', 'lapir', 'vampir' the most common (and oldest form) of them being 'upir'. Hence the 'v' is very unreliable and should be dismissed when searching for an etymology of the word.

The belief amongst the Slavic people was (and remained up until the 20th century with minor variations such as the funeral process) that the soul of a a person which isn't burned on a pyre will always stay on earth wondering and will never find peace and rest. Hence if a person's body isn't found and properly sent to the other world it will lead to the person becoming a vampire, awakening during the night and attacking the living until the the body is pierced with a hawthorn stake.

Now, through this beliefs and the use of the slavic lexicon, we can see that in Old Chruch Slavonic the word for 'fire' is 'pir' (cognate to English 'fire' and Greek 'pur' from Proto-Indo-European *perjos, *paewr- (“‘fire’”)) while the prefix is 'u-' or 'un-' a form of negation in compound words cognate to the Latin suffix 'un'. Hence the word literarily means not fire or in a more expressive manner not burned/cremated [on a pyre] with a secondary meaning of unable to be destroyed by fire [any longer] (hence the stake must be used). This is the only etymology given on the Serbian version of the article.

I would like to ask the moderator, administrator or whoever to add this etymology along with the rest as one of the possible etymologies and in my opinion with the context and beliefs attached the most logical and promising one. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.252.113 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions

In the film section there is a need to mention the film Lost Boys as an important vampire film that inspired a revival in the interest of vampire stories. The film was very influential in the 80s rock/goth community that later developed into the modern goth culture and its relation to the modern vampire story.

In literature a personal favourite but less well known, are the James Asher/Vampire Series by Babara Hambly called 'Those who hunt the night' and its sequel 'Traveling with the Dead'

'Those who hunt the night': Someone - or something - is killing the vampires of London while they sleep during the day. Don Simon Ysidro, the oldest of the London vampires, hires Dr. James Asher, a retired member of the British Secret Service, to find this killer. Asher, who accepts this job for the price of his wife (Lydia)'s life, delves into the shadowy world of the vampires to find a killer that increasingly seems to be one of their number. The UK title for this book is Immortal Blood, the book has been optioned for a film several times, and won the Locus award in 1989 for Best Horror Novel. Published by Del Rey books, December, 1988 (hardcover) and July, 1989 (paperback). Published in the UK as Immortal Blood.

'Traveling with the Dead': The sequel to Those Who Hunt the Night. While attending a funeral, James Asher spots a vampire known to him from before conversing with an Austrian spy. He leaves immediately to try and warn the British government of the danger. Meanwhile, his wife Lydia, upon learning that James is leaving, seeks out Ysidro's help, and the two travel James's route behind him. What they find in various parts of Europe, both about themselves, vampires, love, and state secrets make the chances of returning safely to London slim. The dangers of traveling with the dead are not to be taken lightly. Locus award nominee (dark fantasy/horror), 1996. Winner of the 1996 Lord Ruthven award (fiction). Published by Del Rey books, September, 1995 (hardcover) and November, 1996 (paperback).

Finally, someone needs to add something about where the modern myth of werewolves and vampires fighting each other comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.49.44 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An example of a Vampire is EDWARD CULLEN from the best book ever - TWILIGHT - so all you people who are sitting there in your bedroom thinking about which book you should read next ... well the answer has just been revealed. If you read TWILGIHT then your life will be complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.58.2 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The vampires interview added by northern lights 3000 is a very important article. It chronicles self-identified vampires group norms. The AVA is doing scientific research into symbolic meaning and group norms.

The link to the interview should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern lights 3000 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating the Representations of Vampires in New Media (TV and Films)

You have to mention the 2008 Swedish film Italic textLåt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.165.237 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly mention the appearance of vampires in the tv-series 'Demons'? S1 Ep3 Demons (TV series) Mkmetalhead (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I' have to say a strong no to both. The section in this article is only for the most notable fiction in the full history of beliefs about vampires. Both of the above are probably even too trivial for the article specifically about fictional vampires, let alone vampires in general. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I loved (Let the Right One In) which is being remade in America, I suspect it has already been added to a list somewhere....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful as a comment into the changing faces of vampires in fiction. --Mkmetalhead (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I like to see these articles as a notability pyramid as it were, with Vampire films being more inclusive. I agree on your comment but we need 3rd party refs discussing the changing faces of vampires in fiction....actually, some were posted on my talk page a while ago and I will look to dig up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Right - we have "I Vant To Upend Your Expectations" and A Vampire's Life? It's Really Draining. Might be nice to get some others too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall I semi protect this talk page?

Do some of the IP posts here suggest this is not a bad idea? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this, but it's ongoing nonsense so you'd need to leave it semi-protected indefinitely. Is that done on talk pages? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be. Although, I am in two minds as the the unprotected status of the talk page allows IPs to ask about the article page (which is already indef semi'ed due to vandalism)....hmmm/still... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, talk pages should have a fundamentally different threshold for semi-protection. The article itself is something that readers expect to be at least trying to present verifiable truth. Talk pages, though, are not held to nearly that standard — they're expected to be substantially uncensored — and therefore a much higher level of vandalism would seem to be required to motivate semi-protection, bordering on sustained terrorist assault, really. Granted that noise on the talk page is annoying, I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as the same level of noise would be in the article; I don't think the level of noise here is anywhere near the threshold.

On a related note, if an article is semi-protected, an unregistered user with a useful contribution can put it on the talk page and suggest that some registered user act on it; but if the talk page is semi-protected too, that unregistered user's contribution goes to waste. That strikes me as tragic. (Massively distributed knowledge is what Wikipedia needs to tap into, isn't it?) Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was musing on this and ultiamtely I think I agree with you for teh reasons you cite. I was just getting a bit tired of removing nonsense. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vampires on Stage

Should a section be added to Modern Fiction referencing notable stage performances, such as Dance of the Vampires or the various ballet adaptions of Dracula? I don't know that there have been enough stage adaptions to justify a full independent entry on it like there are for literature and film.--147.153.238.180 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Strike that. Ballet adaptions of Dracula are already referenced on the Dracula in popular culture entry. That pretty much leaves only Dance of the Vampires and Lestat. Likely not enough to justify a full subtopic at this time.--147.153.238.180 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Perhaps we should rename Vampire films to "vampires on stage and film" to cover it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lamia

There needs to be a section about Lamia. they are vampyres that can grow up. They are born into the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat Marine Moffett (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lamias are already mentioned as there is a link to them in the ancient history section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: I am not aware of the particular material you mention - where is it from? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all vampires were undead

The one key problem this article has right now is that it ignores living vampires.

The Astral vampire (Berbalang of Southeast Asia and Philippines and the Chordewa of Bangal hill tribes) is a living sorcerer found all over the world.

Ghul is the cannibal vampire from Arabian folktales and from where our word "Ghoul" comes from.

The Loogaroo (Haiti) is a mortal who becomes a vampire via a demonic contract.

The Penanggalen of Malay Peninsula is another demonic contract mortal vampire as its male counterpart (Kephn) from Berma.

Then there is the Strix a witch who becomes a living vampire from ancient Rome--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those seem to be actual vampires. They are merely creatures that have been compared to vampires. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, the Asian and Americas sections mention some of these. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead in is a mess then because the Penanggalen is NOT a revenant. I should mention that not all undead vampires were revenants either. The Vampir out of the Slavic nations (where most of what we call "vampire" comes from) for instance supposedly attacked its victim as a ghost like wraith rather than as a physical presence. Also while vampires did drain the lifeforce this lifeforce was not always represented by blood; it could be breath (the vampire suffocated the victim), strength or stamina (consumption in some places was through to be sign of a vampire attack), or some other aspect of the lifeforce. In fact two films pulled from these less known aspects of the vampire mythology: Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter (vampire drains youth) and Lifeforce (film) (vampire drains lifeforce directly).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes I know about poltergeistlike activity attributed to vampires - um, the first paragraph of the Slavic Spiritualism section was not placed there by me, and has come about since the article was featured. Actually I think that section has substantially changed, and is alot more speculative. Must check diffs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean referring to Penanggalen above, as that is not mentioned in the lead of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: This article got so big that a large chunk of material was moved to Vampire folklore by region. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead in paragraph: "Vampires are mythological or folkloric revenants who subsist by feeding on the blood of the living. In folkloric tales, the undead vampires often visited loved ones and caused mischief or deaths in the neighbourhoods they inhabited when they were alive." "The Malaysian Penanggalan may be either a beautiful old or young woman who obtained her beauty through the active use of black magic or other unnatural means, and is most commonly described in local folklore to be dark or demonic in nature."

A large chuck of this article is also duplicated over at Vampire folklore by region with additional details like "Romanian vampires were known as moroi (from a Slavic word meaning "nightmare") and strigoi, with the latter classified as either living or dead. Live strigoi were described as living witches with two hearts or souls, sometimes both." "although in Ukraine the vampires may sometimes not be described as dead at all," both of which are back up by references. So why is the idea that ALL vampires are undead in the lead in coming from?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem we're going to have here is of reliable sources and what we choose to cover in the Vampire article. As far as I am concerned, this should be about the folklore of European vampires, based upon the name, and not a whole laundry list of creatures all around the world that somebody said "hey, that's kind of similar in one way or another to a vampire so I'll call it a vampire too". You keep saying that vampires aren't always undead, but have provided no reliable sources to back that up. Yes, the article needs an overhaul, but it should be to pare down the list of not-really vampires and focus on the topic at hand, with links provided to articles for information on the others. Strigoi, for example, is not a term that's an exact duplicate with vampire. It's also a term for witches. Those witches can be alive instead of undead, and that's not to say that that means vampires are alive, it means that witches are. DreamGuy (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is as V for Vampire explains the very word vampire didn't even exist in the English language until 1732 and when Skol wrote his book it was unclear where it original came from. Both Turkish (Oxford English dictionary) and Lithuanian (Vampire Encyclopedia) origins have been suggested as the ultimate source of the word. The actual word "Vampire" comes from the name of one type of blood draining/strangling reverent out of the Slavic states called the Vampir. However there was also the Vyrolakos in the Baltics with very different habits including being active in daylight and the ability to have children.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The actual word "Vampire" comes from the name of one type of blood draining/strangling reverent out of the Slavic states called the Vampir." This is the only relevant section in what you wrote, and it contradicts your claims. The Vyrolakos are related folklore but not vampires -- and I'm not sure why you choose to highlight the fact that they can appear in daylight as if it is somehow different, as most vampires can, the idea that they can't appears only sporadically in folklore and fiction until the film Nosferatu. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You claimed vampire were undead despite the daughter article have no less than four references that said otherwise. Despite them already being used in the article you dismissed four books. The article itself states "although local variants were also known by different names, such as vampir (вампир) in Serbia, vrykolakas in Greece and strigoi in Romania." So the article itself claims the Vyrolakos are a vampire but you say (with no proof I might add) that is it not. So far you are not doing too well on this matter, DreamGuy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) point taken about the revenant in the first line. I don't recall it being there when we took it t FA but may be wrong. OK, given the article is about a mythological/fictional being, I felt it was important to be about how and why people believed in such things (out-of-universe material if you like) as well as discuss some analogues around the world (which are generally mentioned in various vampire dictionaries and the like). Yes the daughter article has some relication but that was because it was summarised and moved rather than just deleted. Regarding coverage, Dreamguy it is only your assertion that a stem article vampire should cover folkloric rather than be an overall view incorporating (the much more popular) current fictional vision anyway. It went through FA and there was a consensus on that. Anyway, I didn't get a chance last night to do much (and it is Monday morning here, ugh). I will compare versions - my issue with 'revenant' in the first sentence is it may be a bit too esoteric to describe them. The overwhelming consensus for core vampire belief is that they are dead though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Except consensus cannot overrule reliable sources and the daughter article seems to provide at least two such sources that say not all vampire needed to be undead. GURPS Blood Types gives a list of where it got its information regarding all the beings it calls vampires so you can go back to the horse's mouth and see if it knows what it is talking about:

• Barber, Paul (1988) Vampires, Burial and Death (Yale University Press)
• Bunson, Matthew (1993) The Vampire Encyclopedia (Crown Publications)
• Frayling, Christopher (1991) Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula (Faber and Faber, Ltd)
• Haining, Peter (1977) The Dracula Scrapbook (Bramhall House)
• McNally, Raymond T. and Florescu, Radu (1972) In Search of Dracula (N.Y. Graphic Society)
• Melton, J. Gordon (1994) The Vampire Book (Visible Ink Press)
• Summers, Montague (1928) The Vampire, His Kith and Kin (Routledge and Keegan Paul)
• Summers, Montague (1929) The Vampire in Europe (Routledge and Keegan Paul)
• Twitchell, James B, (1975) The Living Dead: The Vampire in Romantic Literature (Duke University Press)
• Wolf, Leonard (ed.) (1995) The Essential Dracula (Plume)

--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, would you be happy with a lead that changed "revenant" --> "being" (as undead is mentioned in the next line anyway)? I looked back and realised we did have revenant at the time the article was promoted. The whole Slavic spiritualism section was reintroduced after similar material was placed on the daughter article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: looks ok to me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we please not suggest basing our editing of an encyclopedia article on information picked up from a fictional role playing game supplement? I've read all but one of the books listed above (and that's the one least relevant to this discussion) and disagree with the idea that vampires are anything but undead. There are similar creatures that have some overlap in some small ways that are not undead, but vampires proper are undead. On top of that, while those sources may be fine for a base of knowledge for merely playing games, most of them cannot be considered reliable academic sources. Summers was an occultist nut, for example, who thought demons were real and changed every myth he heard about into some demon possession. Haining is in general one of the least reliable authors on any topic he writes about (see Sweeney Todd for evidence that he just makes stuff up out of thin air). The ones focusing on fictional vampires aren't relevant to the major topic at hand. Bunson and Melton are not experts on the topic; they just compile things for publication, and seem to have purposefully chosen to include any and all mythological creatures that could in any way be compared to vampires, whether it be undead, drinking blood, or so forth. Barber is about the only one on there that I would consider to be all that helpful for an encyclopedia level article instead of a high school essay. DreamGuy (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy, tere are various logic holes here. First, I pulled only the books in the non-fiction section of GURPS Blood Types. Second many of those references were ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE; something you would have known had you bothered to actually READ the thing.

Bunson is used 12 times in the text of the article, Melton is also used as a reference in the main text, and Summers' books are in the reference section. Little late to be complaining about them now they say something you don't personally like especially as the article got Featured article status with them in it.

As for the books on fictional vampires Raymond Mcnally Boston College in A&E's "Ancient Mysteries: Origins of Vampires" admitted the Stoker-Universal version has overwhelmed the actual historical myth that came out of Eastern Europe and effectively created its own folklore. Jonathan Maberry produced something more detailed in the form of The Vampire Slayers’ Field Guide to The Undead. Nevermind this reference out of the daughter article:

(Ukrainian) Словник символів, Потапенко О.І., Дмитренко М.К., Потапенко Г.І. та ін., 1997 which blows the whole undead thing out the window.

As for scholarly reports in English journals are concerned I found only six in anthrosource and of those only these two seemed relevant:

Bell, Michael E. (2006) "Vampires and Death in New England, 1784 to 1892" Anthropology and Humanism Volume 31. Issue 2. December 2006, Pg 124-140

Holtzman, Jon D. (2001) "Speaking With Vampires: Rumor and History in Colonial Africa" American Ethnologist Volume 28. Issue 3. August 2001, Pg 734-735.

So unless you have more than just your personal feelings the rewrite stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: I can highly recommend the book - Barber, Paul (1988) Vampires, Burial and Death (Yale University Press) - great read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"No references to back up change"

That was the edit comment when the person who changed the longstanding lead reverted to his prefered version. That version, whoever, had no references to back up its changes, and directly asserts that two creatures are vampires that are not generally thought of as being vampires and moved most of the important parts of the lead to a secondary paragraph.

In other words, you need to get reliable references for changes you want to make, not the other way around. Your personal belief about what vampires are that you based upon roleplaying games you played are not relevant to an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy, you claimed none of references were relevant to the article despite four of them are ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE and that the daughter article provides references to the fact not all vampires were undead:

• (Ukrainian) Словник символів, Потапенко О.І., Дмитренко М.К., Потапенко Г.І. та ін., 1997.
• "According to Ukrainian folk beliefs vampires can also be living people" Encyclopedia Of Ukraine, vol. 5 (1993)
• Créméné, Mythologie du Vampire, p. 89.
• Levkievskaja, E.E. (September 1997). "La mythologie slave : problèmes de répartition dialectale (une étude de cas : le vampire)". Cahiers Slaves 1. http://www.recherches-slaves.paris4.sorbonne.fr/Cahier1/Levkievskaja.htm. Retrieved on 2007-12-29.

Oh for what is is worth I threw those in but made sure they only referred to the living part rather than the witch and demonic contract issues

--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruce I see where you're coming from and can understand the wording, so I will work with that, but the prepondering popular view is undead - reading how it is now, if you didn't know you'd think the two (living and undead) vampires are of equal notability. Generally, references aren't used in teh lead unless a point likely to be refuted (which I think this is :)) so ref here is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - "Although classically described as undead, a vampire could be a living person..." I felt gave the proper weight - instead of "classically" one could have "usually", "typically", "most often" or something, I guess.... (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned with the position of the references in the sentence as it implies they support something they really don't. I agree with "typically" being a better fit than "classically" and have altered the lead in accordingly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) I know - this is the tricky bit of inline referencing - that they come after a comma or period of some sort. Feel free to tweak along those lines. Agree 'typically' is fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that was not always true. See the online version of Miner's 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article which has several inline citations in the middle of sentences no where near a comma or period (See paragraphs 10, 11, and 20 for examples).--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that there is a fairly strong historical connection of the term "vampire" with the "undead" type of being (based on the original etymology of the term)? (I'm trying to get very clear on this point because, while I have no problem with the new shape of the lead, and I do see that "classically" might be misunderstood as belittling the historical validity of the other traditions mentioned, it bothers me that "typically" seems to belittle the historical association with the term "vampire" that I'd understood to exist.) Pi zero (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In folklore, the vast majority of beings either called or classified as vampires are undead, but (as Bruce points out) there are examples here and there of living vampires (in fiction, the preponderance of undead versions is even greater). Hence the challenge of trying to get the wording right. If you can think of a better adverb, I am all ears (eyes?) - "generally"? "for the most part"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the article talks about both folklore and literature/movies vampires "typically" is the best fit. Near the end of the golden age of horror Universal for some insane reason decided in House of Dracula (1945) to try and explain away all their classic monsters with "scientific" explications--the result is that vampirism is "explained" as some form of disease. While House of Dracula did a really lousy job in this department the 1954 novel I am Legend and its three movie interpretations (The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man, I Am Legend) did a far better one. While rare these living vampires do show up from time to time in litature: Morbius, the Living Vampire (Marvel comics 1971), Countess Dracula (1971) though it does have supernatural elements, a Star Trek novel called Bloodthirst (1987), Blade (Marvel comic, he was infected by Morbius and so is still alive), and a few other movies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also musing on The Hunger..where Catherine Deneuve seems to be more undying than undead as such (?) interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin H. Greenberg's Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1992) has the story "Blood Drive" where vampirism retarded the aging process but was also a form of leprosy where the vampire eventually "decomposes without dying". In some respect it is reminisce of James E. Gunn's The Immortal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I Am Legend?

I noticed the book I Am Legend by Richard Matheson is not in the modern fiction section. It is surely as important as the Twilight books, and told us more about vampires, making them believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.221.113 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

more proof of living vampires

1998 Dundes, Alan (ed) The Vampire: A Casebook # University of Wisconsin Press ISBN-10: 0299159248 also talks about living vampires. "The most typical vampire is therefore the reanimated corpse. We may call this the dead-vampire type. (being new paragraph) People destined to become vampires after death may be able in life to send out their souls, and even their bodies, to wander at crossroads with reanimated corpses. This type may be called the live-vampire. It merges into the ordinary or witch or wizard, who can meet other witches or wizard either in the body or as a spirit." (pg 13) Pages 14 and 22 also talk about live vampires and page 52 makes the case for a supposed "live vampire" in Russia actually being a werewolf. So here we have a university press book talking about live vampires, notes they merge with the ordinary witch or wizard, and seperates them form such things as werewolves. Face it, Dreamguy, I can find references that show you are POV pushing so give it up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sometime the vampire is thought to be the soul of a living man which leaves his body in sleep,..." Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition (1910-1911) pg 876. I would say the prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica would be enough to satisfy anyone.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries and cities

Transsylvania should be named in the article, aswell as the city of Volterra (see Twilight-book/movies)

also, add a

For Vampire (tailing missile), see Vampire/Archive 9 (disambiguation).

in the top.

A vampire is also a term for a missile (eg surface-to-air or air-to-air) tailing an aircraft

Transylvania is important thanks to the popularity Dracula. In the actual folklore vampires are not a common as werewolves. If you aren't a Twilight reader you likely haven't even heard of Volterra.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Vampires, Burial, and Death"

Written by Paul Barber in 1990, this book shows that the classical symptoms of a vampire--mouth full of blood, no rigor, "new" skin and hair--are the symptoms of normal decomposition. Medieval peasants would be familiar with recently dead corpses, and with bones, but the intermediate stages of decomposition were unknown to them and thought to be "unnatural". I think this explanation is much more likely than porphyria and the like and it should be worked into the article.Shrikeangel (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been, and I felt I balanced it well. Barber gives an excellent review of how the urban myth of porphyria mushroomed as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

correction to twilight comment

under the section of vampires in modern fiction - literature, there's a comment on the end that says

"The vampires in the Twilight series(2005-2008) by Stephanie Meyer resist the sun, garlic, and crosses."

but this is incorrect: they avoid the sun because it causes their skin to sparkle, causing obvious suspicion into their condition, but it has no effect on their health. garlic and crosses have absolutely no effect on them. they find no need to eat, but are still able to.

Stephenie Meyer's name is also misspelled.

other than that, it's a great article that i came across recently when looking for books to entertain me after twilight, and i found it very helpful. Twifan66 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are misreading the line. Saying that one "resists" something means that it has little or no effect. Also, you can change the name yourself. Just click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page or in any of the section headers. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I truncated the original insertion of twilight stuff. Still haven't read the book myself. Will look to changing it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize the meaning of "resist," and that your are correct in saying that it doesn't necessarily imply that they are affected by it. But to someone who has not read the books, pointing out that they resist the sun, garlic, and crosses hints that they have an aversion to them. But the distinguishing quality of the Twilight vampires (and I believe, the entire point of including them on this page) is their distinction from previous vampires in literature. The Cullen's (the coven of vampires that the saga revolves around) own a large cross, which resides in their home. The do not resist garlic anymore than they resist water or toothpaste. They simply don't need it. I understand that the point of this article is not to talk about Twilight, but at least you could remove these implications so someone could look elsewhere if they needed more information instead of making the wrong conclusions from this page.Twifan66 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What about "The vampires in the Twilight series(2005-2008) by Stephenie Meyer ignore the effects of garlic, and crosses, and are not harmed by the sun (although it does reveal their supernatural nature)." Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

awesome! thanks for listening to my rant!24.236.86.16 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say: — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)