Talk:Zombie (folklore)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lifespam of a zombie?

How much hours (days or years?) does a zombie can stay "alive"?. For example a zombie in a normal use (hunting for people and walking without a clue) or a well preserved? (a mummy can be called a zombie?). --Magallanes 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For a regular zombie, probably only 2 weeks or so at the most until it rotted. For a mummy, it would most likely be able to last until water got in and rotted it. --Bobman110 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this varies considerably between zombie stories/hypothesis/fiction. For example a voodoo zombie supposed to be human and would have a human scale lifespan if treated well enough (food, water, rest, etc). Some fictional zombies are reanimated by things that slow down decomposition, giving them a lifespan of several years, while others are reanimated by curse etc and will last until the curse is broken/ends. This might be at midnight on a certain day, or might be forever (until the zombie is physically killed through decapitation , magic weapons, etc). - perfectblue 09:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Life Zombies

I don't see an entry in wikipedia or a section in this article for the real life condition of being in a zombie-like state due to tetrodotoxin, and datura stramonium— the zombie’s cucumber. See BBC ChemMatters October 1987 Page 4 "Zombies" (PDF) or the HTML format via google.

From digg:

Clairvius Narcisse was declared dead. 18 years later, in 1980, a shuffling, vacant-eyed man identified himself as, Clairvius. He told a fantastic tale of being dug up from his grave, beaten to his senses, and led away to work as a slave on a remote sugar plantation. The authentic “zombie powder” was shown to produce a death like coma.

Osirisx11 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the correct spelling of Zombi used? The "-es" is applied only when used in a plural form.

Because "Zombie" IS the correct spelling.

To be exact, "zombie" is an established correct English spelling - Skysmith 08:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question... and am new to providing wikipedia content... but what about scopolamine? isn't that supposed to provida a zombie-like state? It may be local to Haiti (I'm not sure... it is certainly local to mainland south america) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.151.115 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but scopolamine doesn't mention the word "zombie" at all, only that in one location it might be used in shamanism. Find a reliable source, then feel free to add it in. Travisl (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

the description of zombie movies says I Walked with a Zombie is an example of zombies not under the control of an overlord, but that's actually not true. the 2 zombies in that movie are 1 a guard very clearly under control of the shaman/drummer guy and 2 the woman who walks around at night not very clearly of her own volition and not looking for food. also she is not definitively a zombie, unlike zombie #1.

User:Korith17 added the following to the Zombie article, and i reverted because i felt it was even more advertising for the zombie squad website (which is already linked in the article) and the rest was trivial. he later contacted me with the following link to a word document (i confirm its macro virus free) [1]. he has confirmed he is the author of that document, that he sometimes posts on the zombie squad website himself, and that its ok for me to publish this link publicly.

this is the text he placed in the article originally:

Theoretical Zombies: Many people in groups such as Zombie Squad and Ozort that there is a realistic zombie threat that might happen. Many theorys include the ultra-rabies virus similar to 28 Days Later or an act of god creating zombies like those of Dawn of the Dead.

in addition he said "i propose we add the theory of possible zombies. mainly add some stuff about rabies and possible mutations. more detailed then what i had originially posted"

i'm not really qualified to make a judgement here, my opinion is its original research, pretty silly and should not be in the article, but i would like other opinions. would anybody be willing to read that document and suggest a course of action? hopefully a consensus can be reached. Zzzzz 18:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This appers to be a case of original research. I can't find any valid scientific claim that concurs with the conclusions made by the editor in quesiton. I would agree that the theoretical zombie part be left out of the article Duke nemmerle 12:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

meh, if thats your judgement then so be it. i'll try and contribute in other ways to wiki. remember this though

$(R/M)+H=Z$ Where R is Rabies, M is mutation, H is Human, and Z is ZOMBIES!!! have a good one. --Korith17 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's a little silly, but whether something is silly or not isn't the criterion for being included in Wikipedia. The two sources cited do believe zombies are a real possibility. I for one think it would be interesting to include both reasons why some groups think zombies are possible, and why zombies might not be possible. 69.205.160.33 18:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the person above. There are things people believe are real, even though it might seem silly to others. The article has a great deal of evidence as to the "imaginary" zombies, why not give some proofs as to why some people think zombies are a real possibility? -- Steven 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not run astray of Wikipedia's policy regarding undue weight. If such people actually exist as a real phenomenon (rather than as a sick inside joke or some company's marketing strategy) then this constitutes an extreme minority with no newsworthy or scientific standing. I call this sub-notable: not worth the electrons Wikipedia is printed on. Durova 07:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia should not paraphrase information from other websites indiscriminately. Publishing information about "real zombies" will not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Maxwahrhaftig 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Has it ever really happened in real life? If not, has it been proven true by multiple parties? If not, it is a lie and it is vandalism. Link9er 13:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a small section should be added regarding those who do belive zombies are real, and with it some of their evidence. otherwise we would not be portraiying other all points of view. Somthing along the lines of. "A small minority of people do beleive that zombies exist or could possibly exist, often using the following information to support their claims..."

I agree with that also. It's only fair.--64.9.10.166 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia has a clear policy: if that faction is notable enough to have a prominent advocate then cite that advocate. If there's no voice in support of this other than a few bloggers and forum posters then it's sub-encyclopedic. Durova 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Links

Some people have been religiously deleting links added to the zombie links section. Believe me, I understand and support the need to destroy spam and vandalism, but these links are genuine and repeated attempts to put them back up have been dashed. Somone even deleted the entire zombies on the internet section.

This is a page about zombies. The links in question are about zombies and are relevant. So what's the beef? Why are they removed? Upon whose authority? Removing interesting links doesn't increase the quality of the wikipedia page.

I submit that some person or persons have been deleting these links out of sheer reflex, and has neglected to reflect upon the true virture of external links.

I say to you all, GOOD DAY!

Take a look at Wikipedia:External links and remember, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Just because links aren't spam in the traditional sense doesn't mean they shouldn't be removed. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, those links are priceless resources. Wikipedia may not be a web directory, but it is supposed to be the end-all resource for information. I believe that in this certain context, such should be done to leave the links up, so that more information can be available to the public about this interesting topic. It is only with the spirit of Wikipedia that I argue this point. (From: Someone Else, agreeing with the first gentlemen on this situation)--

In the zombie links section, would it be a good idea to include Zombie Squad? They might be someone to include. Reason I'm asking is I don't want to add it just for someone else to delete it. SkinnyZan 06:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

HAHA YEAH BOY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.182.79 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Satirical Zombie Related Web Sites

Why is the external link to zombiedefense.org repeatedly deleted? Satire involving zombies, zombification, shamblation, etc. isn't currently represented on the wikipedia site. Said web site doesn't fall into one of the 9 "What should not be linked to" categories listed on the Wikipedeia:External Links page. Would the external link crusher please explain why the inherent freedoms of zombie fearing human beings must be trampled upon? Thank you. (comment unsigned but clearly by the spammer (and by spammer, I mean freedom fighter) who keeps putting the link there despite seeing that nobody else wants it)'

Satire sites are nonencyclopedic and serve no purpose. It's unrepresented because it's pointless and stupid. It is also clear spam. DreamGuy 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

-Such hatred and venom is both disturbing and deeply sad. You've got to forgive yourself Dreamguy, you've got to let all of the hate go or it will burn up your insides. You're not alone. There are many support groups out there that will help you work out your anger issues and help you add more superfine external links.

Wow! Pointless and stupid? When the zombie holocaust occurs and you no longer have the Wikipedia:Zombie web site to police, zombiedefense.org will welcome you with open arms. If you can convince me that the information herein is in no way encyclopedic, I'll calmly allow Repeating Z to ban my IP from editing this site.

Zombie Squad and the FVZA are better and more well-known examples of zombies-as-real satire pages, if you're arguing that at least one good satire site should be linked. Or are you trying to link to a website that you own or maintain, as listed in "What should not be linked to"? --McGeddon 08:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And eh, I can only see one item on that glossary page that isn't made-up slang, and that's "zombie". --McGeddon 08:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the two web sites you mention are not purely satirical in nature. If you honestly feel that they are, then please link to one of them. As a result of Repeating Z's warnings, I am no longer trying to link to anything. I'm just trying to understand why there isn't a place for zombie related comedy on the Wikipedia site.

Zombie Survival Guide

This has been removed a couple of times, most recently by Zzzzz saying "rm erroneous info (an instructional/serious book?)" - the book is serious in tone, but obviously a work of fiction. It's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, moreso than some of the other books listed in the section, and the fact that a market existed for it in 2005 seems of encyclopaedic relevance. Is the problem just that it's not "literature"? --McGeddon 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I was surprised that it wasn't listed. I made sure that my entry fit the same feel as the other Literature entries, so I'll be fairly surprised if it gets removed. EVula 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, looks like it's been deleted again, with absolutely no discussion. Obviously one person's opinion matters more than two... EVula 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1) just because ZSG has its own page doesnt make it notable. every pokemon and primary school has its own page, doesnt mean every pokemon and primary school is listed in the Pokemon or School articles. 2) ZSG *should not* have its own page. the result of an AFD debate was that it should be redirected to Max Brooks. 3) some spammer decided to go against consensus and recreate it as a separate page, separate from max brooks. they were wrong & have broken wikipolicy. it should be merged back into max brooks. 4) multiple wiki-editors agree ZSG links are spam, not just dreamguy. 5) everyone who disagrees is suspiciously new. 6) dont put ZSG spam back in - please argue the case here first. Zzzzz 12:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the AFD debate when I added the paragraph back just now. I was only mentioning notability because some of the other books and authors referenced don't have Wikipedia articles, that I didn't see why the ZSG was being deleted when unlinked books about zombies were left in. The existence of a published, parodic survival manual seems as encyclopaedically relevant to the genre as anything else in the section, to me.

(Is six months really "suspiciously new"?) --McGeddon 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Heh, I agree with the sentiment, but those are bad examples. Both categories (Pokemon and School) are much larger, with the later being a very "general" item. Pokemon actually does have a list on Wikipedia; it is even linked to from the main Pokemon entry. Similarly, there are numerous lists of schools, also linked to from the main School article (albeit in the form of a list of lists). Zombie is a relatively small subject (in comparison), and I don't see the problem in linking to another zombie-related entry, especially when it is different-yet-similar from the other paragraphs in the heading (different because of the humor, similar because it deals exclusively with zombies). 2) I disagree, but see #3. 3) I also disagree, but wasn't going to push this until after I'd fleshed out the article some more (I'm in the middle of it, but Real Life reared its ugly head). However, doesn't the fact that severeal members keep pushing for it's existence mean anything at all? 4) And until now, none of them had bothered to use the Talk page to explain why that is. 5) You know, I could have sworn I read something about that... (also relevant) I'm getting tired of being labeled a spammer just because I like a freaking book. 6) As I've said, until you, no one else bothered to argue back; they've just deleted it with no discussion. That's the crux of the problem. EVula 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just did an overhaul of The Zombie Survival Guide. Not only is it a much more substantial article now, but I've addressed the notability issue as well.

Unless someone can come up with a decent reason for the ZSG to not be included, I'm going to add my original summary to the Literature heading in a few days (as per Zzzzz's request that we argue the case here first).

Just to sum up my stance, here's why I think the ZSG has every right to be listed:

1. It involves zombies (an obvious pre-requesite).
2. It has a substantial article now (regardless of its past).
3. City of the Living Dead, Xombies, ZombieWorld: Winter's Dregs, Champion of the Worms, Dawn of the Dead, Walking Dead are all listed, but have no articles.
4. Furthermore, the authors of Xombies, Dawn of the Dead, and The Goon don't have articles.
5. ZombieWorld: Winter's Dregs and Champion of the Worms don't even have authors listed at all. I don't see how you can call ZSG a non-notable article that doesn't deserve to be under the heading of Zombie Literature when you've got two unattributed books listed. A quick Google search for "ZombieWorld: Winter's Dregs" turns up a whopping 261 results, compared to the 572,000 for ZSG.

I look forward to any rebuttal. EVula 07:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

*poke* I'm adding/editing this entry specifically to make sure that anyone who has this on their watchlist who is opposed to the re-introduction of the "new and improved" ZSG article has had a chance to debate the issue. It's been nearly a full day with no response to my post above (and a few more days with no response to the one above that).

I realize that some people can't check Wikipedia every day, but both DreamGuy and Zzzzz (the only two people currently disagreeing with me) have been active since I posted the above. But just in case... I'm really trying to be totally and completely fair here, but if I don't see any arguments by Saturday morning (US CST), I'm going to add it. EVula 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

existence/non-existence/length of articles in wikipedia is not a criteria for notability. see Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOT. "there is other non-notable stuff, so why cant i include *my* non-notable stuff?" is an equally invalid argument. just because some junk has previously slipped thru undetected, doesnt mean open access to all junk. on a sidenote, the zsg article still doesnt establish any verifiable claims of notability. there are no references, no sources are cited. so as it stands it is still a candidate for deletion. see Wikipedia:Verifiability. ciao. (unsigned comment by User:Zzzzz @ 13:12, March 3, 2006)

Okay, I'm willing to concede that I'm a newbie, and so maybe I don't understand certain Wiki things, but... I still can't see what the argument is. Please, try to help me understand; I'm trying to be a good Wikipedian, but I'm terribly confused by this.

1. I read Wikipedia:Notability. I have done a Google test, the results of which I mentioned above as a link to the discussion heading; I concluded that I had verified notability, but you haven't responded directly to that claim. See also Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles; Google testing is listed under the "Other material" heading (no heading for literature). Nothing on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) was relevant (that I found).
2. I looked at Wikipedia:NOT; I didn't see anything on the entire page that was relevant (and none of the eight items they list under "indiscriminate collection of information" are applicable).
3. Re: the "just because some junk has previously slipped thru" bit. Sorry, I think your response due to some sloppy writing on my part. Numbers three, four, and five aren't saying "that's junk so my junk can stay"; they're illustrating that a double-standard is being held. I'm asking why the noted content (especially #5) is allowed to be in there while the ZSG is being blocked, when both can be classified as non-notable (and, as I established above via a Google Test, ZSG has a greater notability than the first item mentioned in #5). I'm requesting clarification, not making demands (like I said, sloppy writing on my part).
4. Well, I think I've just addressed the Verifiability. I have added the single referrence to the ZSG in accordance with the Complete citations in a "References" section entry on Wikipedia:Citing sources. According to the Verifiability section heading of Self-published sources in articles about themselves, I can use the ZSG as a source for its own article (assuming that you consider the book self-published and/or its publisher "of dubious reliability"; if neither is true, then the publisher qualifies as a "reputable publisher", which is the crux of the argument for Verifiability, meaning that the article is verified now).
   1. I'm also sort of confused about this rule's application in to works of literary fiction in particular, as there are numerous instances of Wiki book entries that have no references at all, such as Perelandra (linked to from the Zombie article), The Goon (also Zombie-linked), The Rising (novel) (also Zombie-linked), Five Billion Years of Change: A History of the Land, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, Closing Time (novel), The Shrouded Planet, Calico Captive... etc. Again, I'm not saying that my "junk" article should exist just because other "junk" articles exist, I'm merely pointing out that I feel there is a double-standard being held, and am requesting some clarification.
5. Something I found interesting on the Notability page was Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability. On that page, it is stated "There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it." As I've established that the ZSG is not non-notable, there's no reason for it to be deleted (addressing your final point of interest).

The way I see it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), I've established notability and I've established that the article is verifiable, which is more than can be said about some of the other items under the Literature heading. As those are the only two complaints that have been levied against the ZSG's listing under the literature heading, is there any reason I can't add it (again)? EVula 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I updated the ZSG article again, this time adding a Critical Response heading, with references (relevant Talk entry). Notability has been established. Verifiability has been established. I'm not adding it to the Zombie page today (as I said earlier) because you (Zzzz) have raised an argument; though I feel I have sufficiently responded to all your concerns, I haven't received a rebuttal, and in the interest of fairness, I'll continue to wait for a bit. Sunday or Monday, then? EVula 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you put it back it will just get removed again... We can't list any and every book that in any way mentions Zombies. This is not List of books featuring Zombies. Frankly, it's doubtful the book deserves an article of its own, but it sure as heck should not be listed here. See WP:ENC for more info on what an encyclopedia is. DreamGuy 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I have worked very hard to address each and every complaint that has been levied against the ZSG article. Zzzz, though I have argued with him, has been extremely helpful in illustrating what still needed attention. You, on the other hand, keep dismissing it without any constructive criticism. Why? I'm not trying to make the Zombie article into an indiscriminate list of zombie books; I'm trying to have a diverse cross-section of Zombies in Literature, which is what the heading is all about. I'm not even trying to put it at the top of the section, thereby claiming some sort of increased importance for the book; I'm adding it to the end of the section, which helps flesh-out the heading (it would mean that the Literature heading would cover novels, comics, and humor books, which seems pretty well-rounded to me). You dismiss the ZSG article as non-notable, despite the fact that I've worked very hard to establish both verifiability and notability; neither claim of mine has been directly addressed by you.

Please, give some explicit rationale for your argument; linking to WP:ENC (though it is pretty funny) doesn't tell me what I have to do to the article to win your approval. I've made numerous attempts at generating an actual discussion (as per another editor's request) about this before just arbitrarily doing anything, but you've yet to respond to any of it (either here or on the ZSG Talk page.

To quote Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles of Wikipedia etiquette: "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate." I've spent a lot of time developing my arguments, between the research, article editing/improving as per the research, and then writing my responses both here and on the ZSG Talk page. The fact that you just keep dismissing me without any discussion (such as saying I haven't provided evidence for removing your notability flag, despite the fact that I already had on the Talk page) is insulting, and I really don't appreciate it. EVula 18:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm trying to get an actual discussion going. You (DreamGuy) haven't provided a solid reason for why the ZSG can't be listed; you keep saying it is non-notable, but then don't comment on the evidence I've presented on its notability. The first step of dispute resolution is to "discuss the issue"; I find it terribly difficult to do so if you don't respond (and doubly so if you refuse to address the evidence I present). I'll post a note on your User Talk page requesting you read this, just in case that will catch your attention a bit better. EVula 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Sorry I don't have the know-how to do this myself, but a spoiler warning needs to be added to the Zombie article; the Zombies in Fiction section contains plot descriptions.

Thanks!

-Daniel of Michigan

Spoiler warning added. EVula 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Cheer

I can't seem to locate the origin of this phrase, but I know I've seen it on Slashdot numerous times. It goes like this...

What do we want? BRAINS! When do we want it? BRAINS!

I think it's amusing, and would make a nice little addition to the article, but only if we could find a proper citation to it (and the original cheerleader canon).

I agree! I've heard that somewhere too! Try Google searching it, and see what you get. 141.156.149.122 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Manga_King

Technical question

Could Jesus be classified as a zombie, according to the accepted definition? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.39 (talk)

As amusing an idea as this is, I don't believe so; typical Christian mythology holds that Jesus actually returned to life, meaning that he was once again alive, not undead. EVula 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

well, not only returned to life, but transcended into a higher power; his "body" was ascended on Pentecost. A zombie is just the body shambling around.--208.186.134.103 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, although I accept the story factually, the easiest frame of reference to use for discussion is modern fantasy literature. In just about every story or game that encompasses the concepts, there is a clear distinction between a healthy resurrected person and a zombie. Zombies maintain many of the characteristics of a corpse. They are, so to speak, a step down from normal humanity. Again, in the Christian beliefs, Jesus has not only fully risen, he has risen to a new kind of human life. He is a step up. Zaklog 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make him the perfect zombie? I would certainly classify "perfect zombie" as a new kind of human life. You may argue that Jesus' physical condition was perfect after the resurrection, but who are to believe? I've seen plenty of stained-glass windows depicting a fair-skinned, light-haired Jesus. Are we to also believe that Jesus wasn't Middle Eastern? Maybe he was Russian. The point is that Mark 16:1-8 clearly states that the "new" Jesus was wearing a white robe and that he scared the crap out of people. It doesn't say why they were scared. There is no mention of a foul stench or rotting flesh, but would such a thing be allowed in The Bible if it were true? 24.123.148.34 14:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The "accepted definition". I'll take it from my "accepted definition", which is Haitian Vodou (what other definition could there possibly be?): No, because his soul was not stolen from him. But perhaps also yes, because Zombi is also a name for Damballah, a Loa who is virtually identical in function to Jesus in their pantheon, although most commonly syncretised with St. Patrick because of his connection with snakes. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To reply to the 2nd comment above this one... the people were really scared because they had seen him die, but here he was standing in front of them. ;) Manga_King

The term "Zombie" vs. "Ghoul"

I think it's an interesting note that George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead is largely responsible for our modern concept of "Zombie" yet the movie itself never uses the word.

In the film, the undead creatures that rise from the grave to feed off human flesh are called "Ghouls" by all of the characters. "Zombie" was still a relatively obscure Voodoo term at the time. I wonder exactly where the two concepts mixed.

I suppose this is as good a place to put this as anywhere. (1st time poster, long time listener) Regarding the reference to Ghola in Dune, I am not sure this is entirely valid, I think Ghola is much more likely a reference to Golem, of yiddish decent, meaning an automaton. It seems a pretty big stretch to link this to zombies.

"Golem" and "Zombie" are not the same creature. Golems are usually inanimate objects like statues that are animated to do the bidding of others. I know this will need verification, but I agree that "golem" is used in ancient Jewish folklore (I'll start digging). "Automaton" IS a good synonym. If I'm not mistaken, "Ghouls" have a very ambiguous role in folklore and horror fiction. They have been described as the human servants of vampires (say, like the Gypsy thugs in the Stoker Dracula novel, or the blond-headed bespectacled servant in the Fright Night horror flick). In the Dungeons & Dragons role playing game, ghouls are similar to zombies, but are slightly more intelligent and henceforth more dangerous. The actual word "ghoul" is of Welsh origin.--Mikepope 18:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to say that ghola's are not zombies and are not in any way like zombies. For all intents and purposes they are clones, the only distinction being that a gholas's dna comes from a corpse and a clone's froma living human, the two don't act any different in the Dune universe ( if you doubt this re-read ALL of the books in the original series by Frank Herbert not just the first three). Gholas dont act like zombies, they are not necessarily mindless or controlled by another entity (I say necessarily because the Bene Tlaxu like to experiment and may make a mindless or controlled ghola, or clone), they don't generally participate in cannabalism, and have no relation to voodoo. As for the golem comment, I'd have to say that is also incorrect because the ghola's are not necessarily automatons and do not possess great strength or any other supernatural abilities. I believe the basis for the name probably comes from the word ghoul, which can sometimes be used to mean a ghost. It could also just be a refrence to the ghoulish nature in which the DNA is collected and the ghola created.Eno-Etile 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the proper spelling is ghul and is based on the arabic legend.

Agreed, Ghoul it's not Golem.

Anyways a Ghoul is not a human and never was. Also a Ghoul is a alive creature (a demon more specifically). Since a ghoul and a zombie can act in the same way then it's easy to mistake but they are different. Also a Zombie can be called a ghoul using "ghoul" like a adjetive. --Magallanes 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Split

I think this article should be split. The Hatian zombie and Movie zombie are two completely different subjects. Calicore 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(going by the existing headings) If you mean the voodoo and folklore sections in one article, and the "fictional" stuff in another (literature, film, and gaming), I agree. EVula 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I meant. Sorry about the vagueness. Calicore 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no need. see zombie (disambiguation). Zzzzz 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just a disambiguation page; Calicore is talking about creating two new topics from this one. Not quite the same thing. EVula 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Perelandra? Not a zombie

I'm reluctant to remove it without some discussion, but the inclusion of Professor Weston from Lewis's Perelandra as a zombie seems ridiculous to me. Weston was a living, demon-possessed man. There are no indications in the book that he died prior to his role as the Un-man. Would anyone else who's read the book care to comment on this? Zaklog 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

never read it but it sounds justified to remove it. Zzzzz 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fiction vs Literature

We need to differentiate fiction from literature in the headings. Perhaps "pulp fiction"? SmallFish 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, there is no good "line" to divide them. Merging sections. SmallFish 13:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition

I added some info about revenants/zombies in the folklore section. I believe it is revenant (ha. pun.) I mean "relevant". Please post here if you disagree. Thanks.--Mikepope 06:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

H.P. Lovecraft's Re-Animator

I forgot to mention this also, sorry. If it's not in there (and I don't remember seeing it), then someone HAS to put H.P. Lovecraft's Herbert West: Re-Animator shortstory in the literature.--Mikepope 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong request for backup

Does anyone have any cites for the claim that there's a gangland drug that robs people of their free will? It's set off my BS detector big time (if such a drug existed and was deployed by gangs, the media'd be all over it like a zombie on brains :) )... Pat Payne 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? Seems like bullshit to me. EVula 20:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

that's what I thought, but I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Thanks :) Pat Payne 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If there was such a thing, nobody would be using roofies any more, would they?

About Zombie representation

How come there is no mention of the fact that the modern day zombie is a cultural reference to the 9-5 middle white collar class of America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.52.12 (talk)

Probably because there's no verifiable source stating as such. If you can provide such a source, it would deserve a mention. EVula 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Concerning "Gholas" from the novel DUNE (by Frank Herbert)

the concept of a Ghola is more likley to be related to the bibilical concept of a "gholum" (i'm sure i misspelled that) than the english word ghoul, esp. considering the purpose of gholas in the story and Frank Herbert's own background and education as well as F. Herbert's own knowledge of Arabic and Islamic culture (and his biblical knowledge). just a thought.

I'm pretty sure your wrong ghola most likely does come from the word ghoul and not golem, due to the fact that a ghola is a person not a construct without the ability to speak. I think the similarity to the word ghoul is meant to be a refrence to the ghola being a returning consciousness ( possibly) or just one to the ghoulish way in which the DNA was acquired and the clone made. I'm also pretty sure ghola's dont belong on this page because other than the fact that its a persons consciousness returning (infact zombies are usually mindless and there consciousness doesnt return) they havealmost nothing to do with zombies.Eno-Etile 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning an entry in 'Film'

In the Zombies in Film section it includes 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' though It will become a movie at some point should it not be included in literature rather then film? Swk2000 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense someone change it because I always get accused of vandalism when I do it. Eno-Etile 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning an entry in 'Gaming'

I really don't think its correct to ascribe players being in control of "zombies" in World of Warcraft. Players can control undead, rotting human bodies that retain their mental capacity but tend to lose the ability to feel emotion after persisting in undeath for a long time. They retain full mobility and physical speed, reflex, etc. There *are* zombies in the game, but players cannot play as them. I submit that it should be edited to reflect the truth. -user Nachosamurai (feel free to send me a message about the correct way to sign this stuff if I did it wrong, I'm a bit of a newbie :)

Possible copyvio/OR

In reference to my recent edit, [2] no source is provided. It certainly smacks of original research, and with no source cited, it might very well be a copyvio. At the least, it makes an unsourced claim ("many people think..."). The anon. editor needs to provide a source. EVula 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Link

The external link to SupportZombies.com should totally be deleted. It's just a few months old; the content is weak; and the "beautiful 'Cadaver of the Month'" (of which there's only one) is a flimsy excuse for photos of a half-naked woman. And wow, I just realised the History page is a direct rip of Wikipedia. Sorry I'm too scared to delete this myself! 70.55.56.243 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. This article is a victim of a lot of linkspam, unfortunately. Serpent-A 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

image change

The photo that was at the top was already used under the 'zombie walk' page, and didn't look like what a zombie IS. so I changed it. Dvigour 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to 'Zombies In Film'

I just made a change to the section of Zombies in film that made mention to 'Dawn of the Dead' "inspiring Italian director Lucio Fulci to create Zombi II (1979)." That is completely incorrect, if anything it was 'Night of the Living Dead' that was the biggest inspiration at Zombi II. Everyone assumes that it was made to just cash in on Dawn of the Dead, but the 2 films were in filming at the same time, so that couldn't possibly be true. It was only after Dawn of the Dead was released (not long before Zombi II) in Italy as Zombi that the name Zombi II was chosen to follow on Dawn of the Deads success. So only the name was anything to do with Dawn of the Dead, not the actually filming of the movie itself. Just thought I'd clear that up. They talk about it on the 25th Anniversary edition of Zombi2 special Features, Disc 2.

Zombies in Social Activism

I think that the subject "Zombies in Social Activism" is an appropriate one, and it was for this purpose that I linked the FVZA before, with the text:

The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency has a spoof history which includes explanations of the origins of zombies; the webpage is apparently created as an attack on genetic engineering.

Any suggestions as to why a reference to the use of the zombie as a political image is inappropriate- i.e. why the link should be deleted? Grant McKenna 21:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere on wikipedia ages ago about "dead" people in india starting political campaings to get their lives back. Apparentley they didnt have any governmental records regarding their existence, or had falsely been recorded as deceased and were declared non-people. Is this perhaps a case of the un-dead getting involved in local politics?

This is interesting, but I don't think it belongs in this article. It seems to be more about social activism than zombies. Perhaps a see also? IanLamberson 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Under-water travel

My friend and I were arguing about whether or not zombies could travel underwater. He stated that because of the fact that they do not feel pain, or need to breath, that they could easily go from place to place. I believe that either the water pressure would crush them (if they were traveling deep enough) or that the water would eventually cause them to dissolve. Could I get some support for either opinion?

Maier 03 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The only underwater zombies that I know of are in World War Z (though they are very briefly mentioned in The Zombie Survival Guide as well), where there is a very "real" threat from zombies traversing the bottom of the ocean. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, but barring small, shallow bodies of water it's very, VERY unlikely that Zombies will emerge en-masse from water though the occasional one might.

The most important thing to note is that while a zombie might not require air or feel pain, it still requires mobility and structural integrity. A certain pressure in the water can and would destroy the zombie just like it would kill a human, or at least render the zombie unable to effectively continue their movement. Even barring pressure, submersion in water over a continuious period would hasten the decomposition of the zombie enough that long treks would be unlikely.

Likewise, the lack of light and numerous underwater dangers make the zombie traversing certain depths even more unlikely: Given a lack of light and a zombie's lack of intelligence it would be very easy for a zombie to fall into an underwater trench or cave and become stuck, or even just wander in circles in a featureless dark. Numerous underwater creatures also feast on carrion, which means that the typical zombie is likely to be consumed. Even underwater creatures which don't eat rotting flesh might interpret the zombies movements as prey and attack.

In general, a zombie isn't going to last long in water. While a horde of zombies entering a lake might not be immediately destroyed, it's likely than less than a tenth will make it back out. Zombies in general lack the ability to climb effectively, so the less gradual the underwater terrain the less likely it is for them to emerge.

Cross-ocean trips would be, of course, flat out impossible. Lankybugger 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in World War Z the zombies were only submerged in shallow water. Goldfishsoldier 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is quite clear that they're talking about zombies roaming in very deep water. I can't remember the science behind it, though the bit about scavenging animals is side-stepped by the explanation that Solanum effectively wards off all animals. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Gary in Monster Island took faceless and noseless under water to kill a family of three (dad and two kids) docked in the New York Harbor. The book is available online to read today. Damn good book. (The second and third book are weak as hell).Bornaa 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall Max Brooks stating in the Zombie Survival Guide that zombies can travel underwater. In the ocean, however, there little chance that a zombie actually make it to land again, you know, getting lost in the ocean, possibly deteriorating before stumbling upon land again. Dieter Weber 04:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They also travel underwater in 'Land of the Dead'...strange, it seems, that no one would think of that instance. FangsFirst 07:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, there is an underwater zombie in the film zombi 2. It ends up fighting a shark and totally kicking the sharks ass, hehehe. One of the final scenes of that movie was supposed to show an earlier zombie that fell into the water right at the start of the movie rising up out of the water and heading for New York, however they just couldn't get it right and eventually abandoned the scene. You can, however, see some photographs of the incompleted scene on the Zombi2 25th Anniversary Edition DVD in the photo gallery included.

I have a theory, maybe the virus/' that cause reanimation also act as a preservative for the zombie/s thus limiting the amount of decay and effect from salt water. And because zombies are independent over oxygen, they would absorb very little and be able to travel under water far easier. Damn I'm good. Goldfishsoldier 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Like FangsFirst said, they travel underwater in Land Of The Dead, it seemed as though before the smart zombie showed them it could be done they were unwilling because of some memory in what remained of their conciousness about drowning, like the way they were doing what they did in real life in the opening scenes, similar to how there was a comment in Dawn Of The Dead (the new one) that perhaps the zombies flocked to the mall as a result of memory from their life. What i would like to know is whether or not the zombies in world war z made efforts to cross bodies of water or wether they only ended up in the water by accident, does anyone remember a part in WWZ or ZSG when a zombie deliberatley entered the water?

Yes, Zombies can certainly travel underwater. As illustrated in Lucio Fulci's Zombie, Land of the Dead and the Zombie Survival Guide. As for the issue of decomposition, though it is true that Zombies do decompose after time. The very fact that they are undead implies that the rate of decomposition would be unnaturally slow. As for scavenging animals, in general it can be assumed that all animals are repelled by the undead. However, in the film "White Zombie" there are Vultures that circle the Sugar Mill due to the presence of Zombies. The film does not reveal whether or not these Zombies are drugged but living humans or if they are undead. Regardless, the vultures are never shown to attack. As for darkness and rough terrain. Zombies can see, but they do not need their eye sight, and though it is true that Zombies cannot climb, they can scramble. Terrain would have to be very steep to stop a Zombie. It is important to note that Zombies cannot swim. Zombies can only walk along the bottom of the water. If a Zombie is sufficiently boated it may float, however, only the smartest of Zombies could propel oneself along the surface. Given the rarity of "smart" Zombies (Bub, Big Daddy) a smart and bloated Zombie would be very unlikely. Carrefour 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Real" Zombies

This section is really poorly sourced. As mentioned in the edit history, I would have deleted it flat out but it appears to have been accepted by a couple other editors. Searching "Strange Encounters" with the name Maureen Gallery Kovacs turns up less than ten Google hits, but perhaps my Google-fu is weak.

If another editor would like to help me verify this, that'd be helpful. Lankybugger 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kovacs attribution was left over from the bottom of the "Zombies in folklore" section, which was overwritten with the "zombies in real life" addition, which I've now deleted as obvious nonsense. --McGeddon 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

"In the middle ages would be infected with the bubonic plague. However, some people were not dead when they were buried. Considering the person buried alive didn't die, there was a possibility that they could dig themselves out of the grave. They would be walking around climbing from the graves making strange noises due to brain damage from the plague. They would be insane and possibly try to cannibalize other people. Because the "zombie" had the plague, the victim of the bite would get the plague, causing the rumor that you could be infected. This is also the same origin as werewolves"

...Uh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange & Viridian (talk • contribs)

That was removed well before you posted this.[3] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Jesus

The article mentions a Futurama reference to "Zombie Jesus". This likely originated from a skit from the Frantics, a comic group. In one skit, some Hollywood directors get the idea to make a film of the bible so they don't have to pay any writer royalties. One brings in a priest to explain the bible. When the priest says that Jesus died and rose from the dead, another person exclaims "Zombie Jesus!" 24.40.129.63 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)TracyInCary

White Zombie - Zombies in Music?

I'm surprised no one has entered White Zombie/Rob Zombie. I'd enter it but I'm trying to find a more eloquent way of putting it when I have more time unless someone here can?Knightrojen 05:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Zombies ate my neighbors

I believe that the game "Zombies ate my neighbors" (article here) should at least be linked to the article somehow. Also the mention of the song by the same name by the band Single File should perhaps reference the game title being the same as the song title.

68.0.211.217 03:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Zombi 2

It's stated in the documentary in BU's 2 disc "25th Anniversary" release that the outro was filmed to cash in on Dawn as well as the title change. It does, of course, support that it began its celluloid life unrelated except by subject, but they state that the outro was tacked on to tie it in. Anyone else recall this? FangsFirst 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Romero accepting the term "Zombie"

The article states that Romero accepted the term in 2005 with land of the dead. However in Dawn of the Dead Peter says the word "Zombie".

Split of article

Does anyone else think that the lists of examples of zombies in literature, film, music etc. etc. could be split into another article or even just cut back to make this article more informative and less pop-culture orientated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Great suggestion. I've done just that. Travisl 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually visit this page, but I just saw this split and I wanted to give a thumbs up! Great job, fellow Wikipedians! Midnightdreary 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys remove the stuff about Zombies in Film? I really think it should be back in. Right now the only mention of Romero is in reference to Zombie Walks, and I can't find any mention of Lucio Fulci. This page is severely lacking without the film section. It should be reverted. Carrefour 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanpwel

I reverted the change to this sentence, because it's unsourced, has a confusing grammar structure, and replaced a sentence that had valuable information.I changed

But the once mainly associated with turning people into zombies are the Sanpwel secret society who act as law makers in the hatian community, if a person where to break one of the seven rules the sanpwel would be forced to act, the punishments range from a minor illness to zombification once the person is made into a zombie they are sent to work at a farm or a field.

back to

Zombies remain under the control of the bokor since they have no will of their own.

I googled for Sanpwel, and it returned a lot of hits, but there's no Sanpwel article on Wikipedia. There probably should be, but I know nothing about it. I guess that's how secret societies are supposed to be. Travisl 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About to delete "Disposal"

I'm really close to deleting the section entitled "Disposal". Not only does it not have any real information on zombies, it even has the writer talking in the first person. Come on people this can be a really interesting subject from a anthropology standpoint if people actually do some research.Laugh-O-Gram 03:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)