Talk:Vampire/Archive 7

In my poking through the history to figure out when the disambig link appeared, I noticed that there seem to have been discreet edit wars of a sort going on. As it is now, parts of sentences have been added and deleted such that several don't make any sense at all now. I'd go and paste the pieces together, but I have no idea what's right or wrong, and I'm having serious issues following the changes through all the wikification. The reason it's standing out so much, however, is because of the most recent edit to that section by SuzieT (talk). A google search of "Prolander Script" turns up absolutely nothing, and I've never heard of papers (Does it have a title?) being published by "Prof(essor) [Last name]" rather than "First name Last name." SuzieT's past edits to the section have also been to either push a Germanic etymology or negate a Slavic one, and not having any knowledge on the subject myself, I'm a bit confused now. When I get a chance, I'll go through the reference links to see what I find, but does anyone else know better who can fix it up faster? -Bbik 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion that my inexpert editing has caused. The Slavic references were in a mess and, frankly, outdated. The origin of the word 'vampire' which used to be attributed to a russian priest 'Upir' are now generally accepted as incorrect : The Swedish Slavicist, Anders Sjöberg, states that a priest Öpir Ofeigr would have accompanied Prince Iaroslav’s Swedish Queen with their son, Vladimir (as Prince of Novgorod) when they held court in Novgorod in 1046/7. It is this swedish priest mentioned in the russian text. So most of the earlier slavic references are now redundant i.e the word Upir in 1047 has nothing to do with the etymology of the word vampire. Professor Toller published his book which started to blow it all apart. Just as I was trying to update it all, someone dumped a very old theory at the end, so I removed that and made mention of the most recent discovery (to try and stop people reposting old theories). I intend to come back once I had the complete details of his book (at the moment its in german only and its only been about for a couple of months). I'll have to wait until the book is completely translated and on english text websites, then I will complete my entry (hopefully with some better editing techniques) SuzieT 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the German version somewhere? Or is it only as a book still? If there's a link, I can see what I can do about translating it, and regardless, it's perfectly fine to use sources in other languages, even on the English wiki, so if you at least have his full name (by the way, Tallas or Toller?), or the book title, or some sort of details like that, it would be useful (Though probably not in the text, rather as an inline citation. I can help with that too, if you'd like, so long as I have the information.). And until the information you've found is a bit more official, I'd imagine it wouldn't hurt to leave the current research there, especially since it IS cited. -Bbik 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going by Vasmer's which said it was either *ǫруrь or *ǫpirь. Wouldn't Polabian version be something like wąpyr? I don't know Polabian, but that would look like a good candidate since it would be pronounced vampir if borrowed into another language. Of course, I want to check out some of the other sources. -iopq 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bbik. It is Professor Tallas, my restoration man is Toller and this isn't the first time I've confused them in the last few weeks. The only reference I have at the moment is an 'Archivist' magazine preview of Tallas' book. The magazine is circulated mostly to museum libraries, but I can scan the cover and the article, but I don't know how to upload the pictures to here. I'm not sure of the book title but it is previewed as firm source of quoting the word 'vampir' much earlier than the rather tenuous link to the 1047 use the word Upir. It is my plan to have a go at rewriting the etymology section completely - pulling it into chronological order, mentioning the old 'Upir Lichyj' theory alongside the now more widely accepted 'Öpir Ofeigr' theory - and adding the preview of the book revealing the 'prolander script', as the most recent addition to what will be an ever-running saga. If it is OK can I put my draft in here along with my references before I end up ruining the main page again, hoping I can get some help with the links and so forth ? SuzieT 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to upload the article here, just make sure you have the main information (I'm assuming not knowing what information to get was why you were going to upload it in the first place?). If it's an article in a magazine, that means you need magazine title, volume/issue/date, publisher if you can find it, article title, author, page numbers. If you can also get the book's title and full name of the author, that should be worked in somewhere too, perhaps in the etymology section itself like you've already done. If you get hold of the book, use it rather than the magazine article, just make sure you get the information for it instead. For reference, there's a decent list of source locations and information to look for when citing them here.

As far as explaining all the etymology theories to-date, I personally love the idea. However, I'm not sure if that's something that should actually be done. I don't know if it's a better idea encyclopedia-wise to list only the most recent theory to avoid possible confusion, or to keep a running tally of theories, which could eventually become very long if people keep making new discoveries. Perhaps a couple sentences about old theories, with external link(s) to further information, so the main focus is the current theory? Input and explanation from someone a bit more knowledgeable of how it should be done would be nice here.

I see no reason why you can't put a draft here, though. If nothing else, hopefully that way it'll get any arguing cleared up here, rather than through edit wars in the article itself. -Bbik 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry its been so long here's my draft, its the links that cause me so much confusion - I have put up the 'under construction' note SuzieT 16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I do anything with the draft, a few question about it:

• I noticed you made changes in spelling for the word in other languages – I have no way to double check those, are you sure the words/letters you substituted in place of the originals are right? As well, how are there three Polish words for it (wampir, wapierz, upiór)?
• The Russian link you have, does it say anything about the document (who it was to, where)? Can we use anything from the current bit saying it’s a letter to a Novgorodian prince and have it cited?
• Where’d the name Molchanov come from?
• I’m also confused what your asterisks are referring to. Care to clarify?
• Was the preview an actual article? If it was, what is the article’s title, and who wrote it?
• Do you mind if I edit references/changes (mostly organizational) directly into your draft, or would you rather I repost separately (since it’s a talk page and editting other people’s comments is technically a no-no)?

-Bbik 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for all your help, I am so new to this - I wasn't aware that I had made any changes in foreign alphabet, I took the italics out though, are there any in particular? The three Polish words are correct - the etymology of vampire from the wampir, wapierz is no problem but from upiór is doubted, so I split them up like that
• The origin of the russian letter: I've now added that bit into my draft
• Molchanov is cited on the <usurped URL> as a comparative reference (at bottom) so I thought I had best cite/credit him
• I have no idea where the astericks came from LOL, I thought they were something to do with wikipedia coding
• The preview was a one single half-column in a section called 'In the trench', it doesn't have a title or a named author - just a big bullet point at the start.
• Please edit away ! I have great difficulty picking out the actual words of the piece from all this code stuff

I should point out that Öpir Ofeigr is correctly linked in wikipedia to the rune carver, that's what this particular priest did - I added a bit on that too

Thanks again SuzieT 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculously indented, I'm shifting it back out a bit. By the way, I’ve been assuming the 88.110.#.# IP address edits are you as well, just not signed in. Are they? Or are they someone else and those edits should be ignored as perhaps incorrect?

• There were a couple lost apostrophes, I think. I've added them (and the other languages for clarity at the very end) back in. Italics should in fact be there, but they were a bit overboard before. According to Wiki policy somewhere, foreign words should be italicized, unless they're in a foreign script (in this case Cyrillic) and are obviously not English.
• I've also removed mention of Molchanov -- he's part of the bibliography for that link, which makes the link reputable; people can go looking up the bibliography of the citation themselves if they want that much detail.
• Original references have been fixed (seems you're not the only one confused), new ones have been added, though if you could fill in the blanks for the Russian link (if any of that information is provided), that would be great – I sure don’t know where to look for that, I’m considering myself lucky to have found a name and perhaps a title. As well, if I transcribed something wrong, feel free to correct. For Archivist, is there any specific University Press? A country or anything? Or is that the full name? How about a first name for Tallas, or any names for the et al?

Russian page's citation:

| first = A. I.

| last = Sobolevskij

| title = Slavjano-russkaja paleografija (???)

| year =

| pages =

| publisher =

| url = http://www.textology.ru/drevnost/srp2.shtml

• I've also shifted around and rephrased a few sections to help it flow better. I'm leaving the present tense for the possible derivation from Serbian/Hungarian, too -- Tallas' thing can refute all the upir variations, but unless it's specifically said somewhere, making Serbian past tense seems a little too borderline original research.
• There are a few questions stuck directly into the text so they have context, could you check them so I can take them out? Once that's done, I'll move it to the main page and make sure all the coding still works right.

-Bbik 12:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again, sorry yes, the edits are probably me ... I sometimes forget to login.
• I've had to redo the part that read "use of the word Упир (Upir) as a term for vampire is found in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD). The text, 'Upir Lichyj' (Wicked Vampire)" needs to come out. The work by Sjöberg showed that "Upir" was simply a mistranscribed priest's name and the Lichyj part was more likely to mean 'skilled' than wicked, nothing to do with vampires - it was a long held red herring in the etymology of the word vampire
• I've re-added an 'e' on the 1725 report, it was vampire not vampir - and I've added the word vampir a little later on to make the paragraph correct.
• I haven't got any further information on the Russian link, but i do think you have the title right. This is the document that supports the 'red herring' so its probably not worth the work in the context of 'vampires'
• The University Press is the name of the publisher, it isn't affilliated with any particular university but it is British (publishing to universities in the UK, Australia and Canada)
• I had a go at getting a first name for Tallas or at least an initial but it seems it could be an B or a P, so I think it is safer to miss it out (at least until I get hold of his book) - the et al is all it says in the preview
• It looks good. Can I just say how impressed I am with the effort that you, personally have put in to what is just one part of one entry in a huge resource. It is impressive, very impressive - thank you so much
• I hope that, after all this effort, someone doesn't just come in and butcher it

SuzieT 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see no reason why the original report would've had the "e" (The link for Plogojowitz is in English, but Paole's report in German has no "e") but I don't really care enough one way or the other. That can be fought over by others later, or something. In any case, it's in the main article now. -Bbik 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The English word 'vampire' was derived (perhaps via French vampyre) from the German Vampir, in turn thought to be derived in the early 18th century^[1] from Serbian вампир/vampir,^[2][3][4][5] or Hungarian vámpír.^[6][7] The Serbian and Hungarian forms have parallels in some Slavic languages, such as Bulgarian вампир (vampir) or въпир (vəpir), Macedonian вампир (vampir) or вапир (vapir), Polish wampir or (archaic) wąpierz, and Czech vampýr. There have also been attempts to link the etymology with the Slovak upír, Polish upiór, Russian упырь (upyr' ), Belarussian упiр (upyr), and Ukrainian упирь (upir' ), from Old Russian упирь (upir' ).

Among the proposed proto-Slavic forms are *ǫpyrь and *ǫpirь.^[8] The Slavic word might, like its possible Russian cognate netopyr' ("bat"), come from the Proto-Indo-European root "to fly."^[8] Earlier theories had it that the Slavic word comes from a Turkic word denoting an evil supernatural entity (cf. Kazan Tatar ubyr "witch").^[6][7]

The first recorded use of the word Упир (Upir) is found in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD). It is a colophon in a manuscript of the Book of Psalms written by a priest who had transcribed the book from Glagolitic into Cyrillic for the Novgorodian Prince Vladimir Yaroslavovich.^[9] In 1997, Swedish Slavicist Anders Sjöberg proved this usage to be a transcription error from the Swedish Öpir Ofeigr, a priest also well known as a rune carver, into Old East Slavic.^[10]

The first well-documented use of Vampire was from Austrian-controlled Serbia in reports prepared by Austrian police officials between 1725 and 1732 investigating reports of a citizen, Peter Plogojowitz, arising from the dead to attack villagers. The word Vampir has also recently been found in the "Prolander Script," Germanic paper fragments dated c. 944 AD,^[11] refuting the belief that the etymology of 'vampire' is linked with the Old Russian упирь (upir' ) or any of its more modern forms.

References, to double check that it works and because it's a heck of a lot easier to see this way than in code

This stuff changes every generation. it used to be vampires only went after virgins. I guess to scare women into marrying. Werewolfs also used to be under vAmpire control. I don't remember why. It probibly has some basis in fact historically or spiritually. But people change the legends to there needs. ie look at the bible people try to cut that up all the time to futher an agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.14.129.37 (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Greetings. I am Edward Cullen II and I absolutely love things dealing with vampires. And so I was wondering, where did the vampire legend originate? I know that Bram Stoker wrote the first novel on vampirism, but wasn't there a prince in Transylvania who drank blood and started the vampire lore? If you know, please tell my on my page. And if you don't know, come and chat anyway! I love company:) --EdwardCullen II 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I think that this page is to discuss improvements on the Vampire article, rather than to discuss the subject generally. Stoker's Dracula is work of pure fiction based on Vlad the Impaler (no he wasn't a vampire but he did live in Transylvania) and should not be confused with the history and folklore of this fascinating and varied subject - the folklore inspired Stoker, not the other way around - the wikipedia etymology section is now tracing the use of the word Vampir back into the 8th century, hat is hundreds of years before Stoker was even born. Good luck on your quest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.28.37 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Funny that people still are confused about Stoker's work en the facts of Count Dracul.

Vlad Tepes is correctly named Grav Dracul (in Romanian, meaning Count of the Dragons) He got the nickname, while he was as warlord fighting the Turks off. And 1 one single night he killed 20.000 Turks, by impaling them.

This however is used by Stoker, as the impaling took place at night and it caused lots of bloodloss as it gave the specific holes in the body, that are nowadays as well as in legend as in folklore known as the bitemarks.

The name Dracul came from this impaling, as the people saw the poles as a sort of dragonteeth. And no in real life he didn't drink blood as far as I can recall.

Besides Stoker was not the first who wrote about vampires, his work is the first that became worldwide known. On the contrary there have been books written before that on this matter, only those never got the worldwide recognition Stoker got with his romanticesed version on Vampires.

Erwin Roos 14th June 2007 In 1732, German Regimental Field Surgeon Johann Fluckinger wrote Visum et Repertum, the first official report of the exhumination of a suspected vampire and the driving of a stake through its heart. The suspect was Arnold Paul, who had been buried near Serbian village of Medvedja. He was dug up because it was believed that he had returned from the dead, killed four people, and harassed many others. Officials continued to excavate the cemetery and found more suposed vampires; these bodies were decapitated and cremated (is it so?), with the ashes disposed of in the river.−

I added the cryptozoology infobox because this article was listed under cryptozoology and decided to make an info box. So please do not delete the infobox.Ender_Wiiggin 09:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I put back the original picture of the info box, I want them to keep the picture there due to the attention it might get.76.178.78.25 09:07, 24 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

The point of the article isn't to get attention for a game. And even aside from that, this is the wrong article. There is another page dedicated to vampires in pop culture at Vampire fiction, which is where the picture might be appropriate. The better place would be in a page devoted to the game itself. -Bbik 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"The word Vampir has also recently been found in the "Prolander Script," Germanic paper fragments dated c. 944 AD,^[1] refuting the belief that the etymology of 'vampire' is linked with the Old Russian упирь (upir' ) or any of its more modern forms."

First of all, to clarify, I was the one who made the most recent re-write (using another IP), so it might seem that I am biased. However, (apart from other minor deteriorations that have occurred over time) I definitely believe that the above sentence should be removed from the article, and I have serious doubts concerning its source. The technical issue of totally faulted referencing (see below) aside, there is no mention outside of Wikipedia of either the "Prolander script", or anybody named Tallas, either in German or in any other language. The content makes no sense, because nobody ever claimed that "vampire" came from "Old Russian upir' or later forms"; "vampire" is believed to have come from Serbian "vampir", of which Russian upyr etc are merely cognates; the reconstructed original proto-Slavic form (with a nasal o) is given in the article. The wording stating that the etymology of 'vampire' is not even "linked" to "upyr" is simply wild - because whatever the origin of "vampire" and "upyr", absolutely nobody has ever denied and could possibly deny that they are related! And - just the final point - there could be no "paper fragments" in the 10th century, because there was simply no paper in the West at the time (see [paper] for the history). I'm sorry, but I don't think the current reference (if it deserves the name) is sufficient to source the existence of a "Prolander script". Even if one supposes that everything is true, even if one accepts the claim that such a script *is* indeed mentioned in an anonymous one-half-column review in an unspeakably obscure journal that happens to be circulated mostly to museum libraries, the very fact of this extreme obscurity calls for caution. A theory which is still so obscure that almost nobody knows that it even exists (and it is indeed hard to check if it does) can't be propagated by Wikipedia. Especially as that theory (that the origin of the word is Germanic) contradicts everything that has been known so far.

Some further problems with the referencing and with SuzieT's credibility: s/he claims to be a library historian and yet doesn't know how to write references: after initially writing "Prof.Tallas" etc, s/he appears to cite Tallas "et al" as the author of the review of Tallas' own book - a book which remains unnamed - and neither the journal nor the book get a date; even this is a sufficient reason to consider the claim unsourced. Other suspicious facts are obvious from the initial exchange of words with Bbik - s/he has even given the professor different names. S/he has also spoken of the "now more widely accepted 'Öpir Ofeigr' theory" - when even the article that cites it is cautious and makes it clear that the theory is at least controversial among Swedish scholars. More importantly, the whole "Upyr lichiy" stuff has little relevance for the etymology of the word "vampire", despite SuzieT's constant suggestions of the contrary; this does not shed doubt on the existence and relative antiquity of the word "upyr'" and all of its Slavic cognates (and few would suppose that it is descended from the Swedish name, I hope). --91.148.159.4 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have spent too much time and effort on this, I'm not going through it all again. What was the point of thrashing out all that detail only to have some anonymous editor come in and dump his own viewpoint without discussion. I had even offered to scan the original source (see above) and publish it in here as proof of existance.

At no stage did I claim that Tallas write the review of his own book and, yes, I am a library historian; I preserve the structure of books (and have a natural interest in their contents) unlike a literary historian who would be working with their contents and who would reference works as part of their job. The historical reference about paper is incongruous, readers should indeed study the history of paper and buy a map of Germania! The anonymous editor happily quotes a 1047 document - but doesn't attempt to say what is was called or where it can be viewed, Only an ultra modern approximation of the ancient Old Russian text in a different language is cited

In fact does the 1047 text belong in the etymology sction at all does it - did it develop the meaning of any of the words that later became used as 'vampire' - no

Quote: "Upir' likhoy" (which would mean "wicked vampire") This is enough to discredit the entire argument put forward by this anonymous editor - just look further up the discussions page to Kirt from ru.wikipedia.org to see support for this

Undoubtedly when Tallas' work is more widely available, someone will have to rewrite all this again

To finally address the last comment. There is NO suggestion that the eventual use of Upir (as vampire) started with the Swedish Öpir, none whatsoever anywhere. The word Upir did eventually become used to described vampiric creatures, however, the much misused 1047 reference did not mention Upir at all, it was talking about Öpir (a man's name, not a ceatures species and nothing whatsoever to do with Upir or vampires), that was the thrust of Sjöberg's work

Anyhow good luck to everyone. I have done my best

SuzieT 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the sense/meaning/relevance of most of the above. The bit about SuzieT being "a library historian" was especially funny: of course you can't be any kind of historian or scholar in general without having the skills to write some sort of articles and have publications. If a person doesn't know how to write references, it means they probably don't even have university education, let alone being a "historian". As for the effort SuzieT has says s/he spent, I have to say that I, too, have spent quite some effort working on this section (as well as other sections of this article) and that's precisely why I get really pissed off when I see it ruined by misleading/inaccurate/unsourced/POV changes by editors who have just registered, apparently for the sole purpose of furthering some obscure agenda.

To address the only point worth addressing - even if SuzieT did provide a scanned copy of something that looks like an anonymous review of an unnamed book by an unknown, surname-only scholar ("et al"?) in an unknown journal, with no google hits for any of these, it still wouldn't fit in with any notion of referencing and sourcing from a formal point of view, not would it be acceptable from a practical common-sense point of view. Let's assume that I am wrong to doubt SuzieT, that this book, whose title is unknown, exists, and that the discovery of a "Prolander script" just happens not to have been reported in an article of any kind before that book (I, personally, exclude this possibility, but others might not). In that case, Wikipedia will probably be up-to-date in half a year or so, at the same time as a noticeable part of the scientific community has become aware of the new studies, and no harm will have been done. But if I am right, Wikipedia will misinform readers and spread utter gibberish through thousands of mirrors and references all over the net. It's a risk we shouldn't take. --91.148.159.4 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider much of the preceding paragraph to be a personal attack and contravening Wikipedia policy. As the abuser is anonymous I will have to be allowed to be bullied out of the procedings SuzieT 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

PAs are bad, but discussing - and questioning - the credibility of a user in view of his prior behaviour and statements is an inevitable part of work on Wikipedia. --91.148.159.4 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And I have been around for some time here, so I should know. --Anonymous44 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah! discussing - and questioning - the credibility of a ... anon saw something that he hadn't personally encountered before, attacked it and its author, then deleted it. That is NOT a discussion. When when Suzie T attempted to explain, anon decides to simply ignore it. That is also NOT a discussion. If anon has been around as long as he claims, he should be acting as a role model for newcomers. Newbies, that is NOT how it's done

Dear co-anon, that's precisely how it is done; challenging and, in more extreme cases, removing dubious/unsourced content is what everybody here is expected to do. And discussing the credibility of a newly registered user making exceptional claims is becoming increasingly necessary - compare e.g. this case, and these examples of the increasingly common source faking found by me. In our case, Suzie constantly implied that s/he had significant expertise and knowledge about the latest scientific findings; that's what allowed him/her to have his/her way in the first place, and that's what needed to be challenged. Suzie's "explanations" didn't explain anything, and that should be obvious to anybody. My explanations as to why I deleted it were not merely that "I hadn't encountered it before". Assuming good faith (i.e., assuming that SuzieT and you are not the same person, an assumption that I am obliged to make), you either haven't read carefully enough, or you aren't sufficiently acquainted with the subject matter(s). As for how long I have been here (not a very important point per se), any "non-newbie" should be able to see the history of my registered user account, even apart from my editing before that. --91.148.159.4 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Having said that anon has produced a VERY well written and balanced piece that can be added to as and when new information comes to light in a proper verified form. It is an exceptionally well written piece. I, personally agree with anon's motives (but not his method) on the issue of the 'Prolander Script', I would to see more detail before it is included

On a more productive note I see that the 'Upir Lichyj has had the spelling of his name changed to 'Upir Lichol' could anyone explain why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.52.149 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Likhoy. I changed it because the original Swedish article by Sjoeberg uses that form (lichoj, which would be the Swedish rendition of Russian лихой). However, now that I think about it, that might be due to Sjoeberg choosing to use the modern Russian form instead of the original Old Russian one, which is given in the paleografiya as лихый. I'll restore that version. Thanks for pointing that out. --91.148.159.4 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to SuzieT's claims. I do not doubt that there could have been a written text in AD 944 in Germania. However I wonder how a librarian, that is not a scholarly librarian, as s/he says him/herself. How first of all could she date the document ? And as is remarked correctly there was no paper, so what material does the document consist off ? And as a non-scholar librarian, how would s/he be able to read this old Germanic ?

As long as those questions are not answered I think it is very hard to believe in the existance of any document, that is so vaguely described and not known widely.

Erwin Roos 14th June 2007

The lead is meant to summarise the article overall, so the material on vampirism contained in the lead is really out of place - this is not important in the scheme of the article, which is about vampire folklore and the literature etc based on it. I think that this material should not be in the article, but it should not be lost, either. It might be worthwhile creating an article on vampirism to deal with these actual and social phenomena. A small part of the material contained in the body of the current article could be moved there. While I think this would give a better structure and a "cleaner" article, I won't take this action without checking here. For all I know, it may have been proposed before and rejected. Metamagician3000 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would make too short an article? If you have more info about the social and natural phenomena, it could be nice. Otherwise, it would be too similar to a wiktionary entry and would in turn be subject to deletion. How about creating a separate section "Other meanings of the term"? --91.148.159.4 13:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that it could make a good article. I myself am not really educated enough for it, but I know from experience that there is a wealth of knowledge from people on the forums at Drink Deeply and Dream . 80.47.101.93 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is Vampire lifestyle. Still, this is a subject that is very, very hard to verify and any additions will have to be checked for proper attribution. I was also tossing the idea around for a merge to a new "Vampires in popular culture" article but I'm afraid that there might be too much crossover with this article. Also, remember that sites like Drink Deeply and Dream and the community experiances there (read original research) will not fly as reliable sources. NeoFreak 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a couple of references to this article, but my formatting was apparently off. Could someone fix this for me and tell me how I can do it properly in the future? Thank you. Toyalla 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I typically pick the appropriate citation template from this list; they're mostly self-explanatory. From there, stick the whole thing between the <ref></ref> tags and it will show up in the list at the bottom. Additionally, and especially if you use the same source more than once, you can give the reference a short name (<ref name=[insert name here]></ref>), and then all occurrences of that reference will be listed together with superscript letters identifying each use. It will also save you time and space, because once the reference has a name, you can use just <ref name=[insert name here]/> and it will list it with the full reference. Make sure you don't forget the backslash, though, or ALL text after that ref tag will be considered part of the reference, rather than part of the article.

Hope that makes sense! -Bbik 08:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bbik! For right now if anyone wants to fix it please do so while I figure out how to use the templates! Toyalla 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have fixed them correctly. If not, anyone can fix it! Toyalla 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To the person blocking me. Who died and made you God? A specific section on how to fight them is useful, not vandlism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.26 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Because this is an article mainly about vampires in folklore, not in fiction. Asarelah 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Folklore IS fiction!!! Everything about vampires is fictional, and hence everything about them should be allowed on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.26 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Traditional folklore is not the same as fiction, because people believed traditional folklore at one time. There is a seperate article for vampires in fiction, please use it for information about vampires in fiction. Asarelah 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There could be space for a section on traditional methods of killing and prevention, as there are a hell of a lot of different ideas out there. 80.47.101.93 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. Just as long as its only traditional methods, not like the sci-fi kind of stuff that 67.142.130.6 added. Asarelah 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Vampirism section says, "In folklore and popular culture, the term refers to a belief that one can gain supernatural powers by drinking human blood." No authority is cited, and the assertion certainly doesn't jibe with the folklore and pop culture I'm familiar with. In pop culture, normal people generally have to be turned into vampires by already supernatural vampires; just drinking some blood won't do it. Authentic folklore vampires, it is true, don't necessarily need a vampire to sire them, but they crave blood purely for sustenance; they usually have few or no supernatural powers aside from their undead status, and even when unusual powers are attributed to them, these seem to be part of their generally supernatural condition, not something acquired from the blood they drink. Does anyone disagree with that? It is actually corroborated by the rest of the article.

I can certainly imagine that there might be small groups here and there who have believed they could obtain supernatural powers simply by drinking the blood of others. If someone knows of such a practice and can document it, it probably belongs in this article. But that is not what the term vampirism generally refers to in folklore and popular culture, and I propose to excise this assertion. 66.241.73.241 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What you've said is true: of the traditional vampire archetype. While the above comments are a good case for deleting that statement, maybe an expansion is more appropriate. What I mean is, the person who added that statement might have meant religious ideas about the power inherent in blood (think of how everything from the Old Testament to voodoo to more ancient religious practices could be interpreted as supporting the idea that drinking blood imparted power to ordinary mortals). So you're right that a vampire only drinks blood because of its nature, and that its powers are an unrelated consequence of that nature, but I think there's something to this. But it could easily get to be a tangent, should we gloss over it and somehow link to or make another article? Callowschoolboy 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Exist one Spanish Legend about vampirism. The Count Estruc and anothers. In User:Estruch you have references.

Note: Your author is Spanish and need English Translator for write all the story...--Estruch 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of this. First thing is to ask for reliable sources; I can't find any external sources for a legend about a Catalonian vampire called Guifred Estruch (or the similar spellings given). Whatever, it's being spammed across various Wikipedias: Spanish, Catalan and French). I wonder if it's a fictional vampire by the author Salvador Sáinz. Tearlach 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This legend is truly, exist also one fictional novel. I meet this writer in February past and I you send by mail the book. --Estruch 10:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tearlach, what you not write to Salvador Sáinz? SALVADOR.SAINZ@terra.es

If wp:en user Estruch is the same as wp:ca user Estruch, he is lying. In wp:ca he admited being Salvador Sáinz himself. --83.32.68.37 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...and? --Carrasclet 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but is the same in all the wikis (spanish, catalan, english, french) an user named Estruch only and always write references about Salvador Sainz...no more, only books of salvador sainz. Is selfpromotion and Spam. Remember that in Spanish Wiki Estruch is blocked for this reason. Slavador sainz is catalan actor and writer. His films are unknow for the people, and the books (onlu 6) are only know for people that like fantastic and horror films. sainz is nobody but he want to promote hiself in wiki and send more books. Again, sorry for my ugly and poor english.--Britzingen 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And remember that salvador sainz autoedit all his books, nobody want to edit. From my experience in Spanish and catalan Wiki, I am really, really sure that Estruch is Salvador Sainz.--Britzingen 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I read that you want sources of Count Estruc. Ok, no sources. The little village of Llers (5 minutes from my house) was destroyed on Spanish civil war. All the sources of Estruc are oral tales. Salvador sainz give the character and write a novel, an he atributes itself the partnership of the character. Simply, no sources. --Britzingen 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This man only dedicated to insult. --Carrasclet 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This man apparently sock puppet of User:Estruch. Watch your step.--Anonymous44 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, but I mind is very fascist insult to people in all the wikis and his not have opportuny in defend him. --Carrasclet 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read from a few fictional stories(mainly Chinese and Japanese translated) that vampires are essentially a type of viral infection, where the virus destroys the human(or animal) blood regeneration system and make it to create a substance that transform all blood to the same type. Since the infected person can no longer make blood himself/herself, he/she needs to have a blood intake from a second source(victim). Some of these depict the infection having a side effect of making the infected person stronger, due to less material was used to build blood cells and the body can focus on building up the body. This does not seem to be an original research on those fictional writers, and instead sounds like somebody who actually knew a little about medical history who at the same time got interest in vampires who did some actual research. I don't know if anyone got any reputable sources(I am not going to source 5 fictional stories in a wiki article to make it look notable, 1 reputable source is much more better). I did some search online, and did found others talking about this, like here(as a doubting source, but anyone can doubt vampires actually existed, too). However, it seems to be extremely hard to locate any actual source online since there is a book or movie carrying the name Vampire virus and a computer virus carrying the same name. Anyone read anything like this that could be sourced and add it to the article? MythSearcher^talk 14:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all fiction, created out of whole cloth by creative writers, and, as such, has no possible bearing on an encyclopedia article on the topic. DreamGuy 11:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One can use the same claim on vampires, vampires are created by creative writers or at least imaginative people. Using the neutral point of view policy, as long as there are sources that could be quoted, and the sources are reliable and verifiable, it is suited for wikipedia's article. MythSearcher^talk 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's popular enough to be notable (which I don't think it is), then it might be relevant for vampire fiction, but not here. --Anonymous44 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vampire itself is fictional, and vampire fiction is only a page regarding fiction stories instead of fictional believes, yet this article is about the fictional believes about vampires. I see a biological explanation on such subject as better suited here than the fiction page. MythSearcher^talk 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Fiction means literature, film, etc. It is contrasted to folklore=legends, etc. As the disambiguation sentence (the first one) says, this article is above all about folkloric beliefs in vampires, and only a brief treatment of vampire fiction is meant to be included here. --Anonymous44 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if some body is trying to explain the subject in a more scientific manner, like a biological cause(virus or genetic) It is better suited here because it is not very fictional but is more like a possible explanation MythSearcher^talk 04:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the basic different between fiction and legend. Or at least I think that's where your problem lies, because what you are saying makes no sense and that's the only way I can think up that might explain why you are saying such odd things. DreamGuy 05:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that if there is a source claiming such things being a possible explanation of vampires, it falls into the modern belief category, and suits here better than the fiction page. For now, there are no non-fictional sources, therefore I asked if anyone can give any sources. The discussion itself is useless, I know what you are saying, and that is exactly why I did not go and edit the page since it is still only fictional. However, I am seeing a possiblity that somebody might have written on such subject that is not fictional due to the fact that multiple series have made use of this idea. MythSearcher^talk 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) For all the flack he's been getting, it sounds to me like MythSearcher actually does have the right idea. If (and only if) there are any non-fiction reliable sources for the explanations proposed by the stories, then yes, they would belong on this page -- there's even a section for such things already. However, as there are no known sources at this point (and there may never be, but that's not the issue), that would mean the explanations should be added to the Vampire fiction page instead. But the stories are also most likely non-notable, and as such shouldn't be included anywhere. And, if it's been noticed, the stories haven't been included on either page, precisely because of the lack of notability and reliable sources. As far as I can tell, MythSearcher was simply asking if anyone had ever found reliable sources with similar explanations to those proposed by the stories, not asking if or where the currently-fiction-based information should be added. Both of you, give him a break. And I suggest making sure you understand perfectly what's being said, before accusing someone else of not understanding. -Bbik^★ 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly MythSearcher^talk 13:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't accused him of anything, but I think it's obvious that he didn't get the distinction between vampire folklore and vampire fiction. I guess we both did misunderstand him, as he meant the possible existence of a real "vampire virus", in the real world. As an excuse I would say that all this talk about fiction was rather confusing, and it also seemed unlikely that someone would believe in such a thing and request citations for it. Getting back to the original question - no, I don't have such sources, and I have never read anything of the sort. On the contrary, I think it's absolutely certain that the infection that Mythsearcher described does not exist. BTW, here is an example of a rather detailed treatment of proposed medical explanations in German. It's informative, even if one doesn't agree with the author in everything. --Anonymous44 13:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

One does not need to have a writting about real vampire virus, one only needs to have a writting about vampire virus and the author is serious about it instead of writting it as a fictional story. Things don't just fall into fictional and non-fictional just like it does not just fall into folklore or fiction. There could be somebody who looked at vampire stories, and provide an explanation to them without making it a fiction, just like physicist looked at the universe, and provided theories about how the universe came to be, with basically no way of proving it(check out the Universe article on the sentence The scientific theory which describes the origin and evolution of the universe is Big Bang cosmology), yet it is not fictional, nor it is folklore. It will be kinda like the porphyria part, just more theoretically dealing with other possible biological causes, virus or bacteria. Like Bbik said, there might have no reliable sources out there saying such things, yet unreliable ones existed (this one, IS fictional and is not notable to any extend), and I actually have read scientific magazines that tries to explain how some of the legendary creatures got their legend, therefore I asked. MythSearcher^talk 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to argue about words. If the author is "serious about" the virus, then he says that it is or may be real. So it's a non-fictional attempt to explain the existence of vampire folklore (not vampire fiction). Why not vampire fiction? Because this kind of scientific explanation is necessary for the fact that people believe or used to believe in vampires, not for the fact that people like to read and write entertaining stories about vampires. Anyway, peace and happy editing! --Anonymous44 20:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A problem with citation on this page is the reference to the supposedly Sumerian "Akhkharu". I happen to study Sumerology at university, and there is neither an Akkadian term "Akhkharu", nor a Sumerian term. It can't be Akkadian, as it would defy all rules of grammar, structure etc., and etymologically it can't be Sumerian. The only instance in which I have seen this term is in the "Simon Necronomicon", which can hardly be used as a scientific and valid source. As the entry currently seems to be locked (at least I see no 'edit' thing on the page itself), I ask that this part is removed. If there are any questions, I can give detailed quotes from all lexicons on Sumerian and Akkadian that currently exist, and give a grammatical and linguistic explanation why it is not to the standards of Wikipedia to include the whole "Akhkharu" thing. Thank you. - cyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.128.17.10 (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All sources but two seem to say that the German word is derived from the Serbian one. Of the two odd ones claiming Hungarian origin, one () supports it with the assertion that German Vampir is first attested in 1732 in an account of Hungarian vampires. This would seem to be a confusion with the Serbian 1732 Arnold Paole incident, so the only remaining source for a Hungarian etymology is the 1955 OED - which might be outdated. Maybe the "Hungarian" bit should be removed altogether? I don't have a more recent OED at home, could anyone check what it says? --Anonymous44 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Spence, Lewis. "An Encyclopaedia of Occultism". Published by University Books, Inc., 1960.

I have some doubts about this source. The book is obviously more devoted to occultism more than to folklore. The author has apparently done some useful things, such as publishing the Popol Vuh and propagating Scottish folklore, but he was obviously a very excentric figure - an occultist himself, he believed in Atlantis and even managed to write an entire book about the state of the occult sciences on that continent; he theorized that the Scots had originated from Africa, and apparently argued that the causes of World War Two were supernatural. Given all this, I can't even quite rule out that he, for instance, believed in the reality of vampires. All in all, his biograohy reminds me of Montague Summers, who is thankfully not cited to support any statement in our article.

In addition, I have my doubts about some of the concrete facts in support of which his book is cited; I'm afraid he might be mixing up folklore and fiction. For example, the claim that the vampire must be invited to enter a house is very popular in modern fiction, but is absent from the various descriptions of specific ethnicities' folkloric beliefs that I have read (the sentence says "in European folklore", which as non-specific as it gets - vampires proper only exist in East European folklore anyway). I suppose the "no reflection" thing is a logical extrapolation of the "no shadow" motive, but I doubt the authentic peasants had so many mirrors in their houses, so such a legend would probably be useless. The explanation (no soul) could be challenged, too, because many legends state precisely that the vampire is or has the "second" soul of a person who used to have two souls when alive. A more sensible explanation would be that the vampire is, himself, a shadow/ghost of a living person (it is called "shadow" - senka - in parts of Macedonia) and thus has no other shadow. Anonymous44 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Spence was a product of the Victorian era and so not surprisingly believed in a lot of supernatural things. I don't think, however, that he is anywhere nearly as bad as you think in general. He also was very familiar with all sorts of folklore, having produced an extensive series of books about the topic. The Encyclopedia of Occultism does have some very strange entries here and there, but I'd have to go back to look at it to see about the vampire parts specifically to jog my memory.

Your comments about mirrors and peasants sounds pretty odd. Depends upon which century you are talking about, I guess, but certainly there was extensively documented folklore from the period that mirrors should be covered when a dead body was in the house.

Further your claim that "vampires proper only exist in East European folklore" isn't really exactly right either, as it had certainly had time to spread around a bit. DreamGuy 01:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Spence is not really what you would call a normal, mainstream, reliable folklore scholar. He might have known a lot, but our standards should be a little higher than that. As for vampires - it all depends on how narrow a definition one chooses (you can call any undead blood-sucker "a vampire"), but "European folklore" is a stupid wording - both the word and the concept had been unknown in Western Europe until they were borrowed in the 18th century, and even then they were borrowed into literate culture and art, not into folklore. Concerning mirrors, I consent that it might be somewhat far-fetched, but I suppose West Europeans had a distinctly higher standard of living already in the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries or so, and I do think mirrors would have counted as a luxury article among vampire believers in the Balkans.--Anonymous44 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Spence certainly was a normal, mainstream folklore scholar, and reliable to the extent that anyone of his era would be. If you refuse to count him as a reliable source than most any source from the Victorian and Edwardian eras on any folklore topic would have to be removed. Your claim that vampires were borrowed into literature and art and not folklore is just false, you should do more reading of European sources on vampires in that period. They exist, and it's clear the belief was also in Western Europe. And the whole mirror argument is just off base. DreamGuy 06:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) You're being rather inflammatory here, aren't you. You also seem not to be well informed. Of course, if you count any harmful corporeal revenant as a vampire, then vampire legends have always existed pretty much everywhere. But when the Balkan accounts reached the West in the 18th century, the concept was seen as an exotic and barbaric Eastern Orthodox supersition; indeed the Serbian word had to be borrowed to describe it. You may read our own wiki article for more details. Here is also a nice academic source describing "the beginnings" of the concept in the 18th century, unfortunately in German.

As for Spence - no, not every early 20th century scholar and folklorist believed in occultism, and no, it was not mainstream during WW2 to believe that it was caused by occult forces rather than by politics. In fact, science often seemed to have more prestige during that period than it does now.--Anonymous44 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The sections "Romanian Vampires" and "Pathology and vampirism" need a lot of work cleaning up. I did quite a bit on the former, but it's still not great. Before there was an attempted explanation of why two particular feast days coincided with increased vampire activity, but it was as clear as a brick. I tried salvaging it but I couldn't save much, deleted a lot. And still there are major problems. The claims of the saints' patronage do not jive with their wiki articles, that I linked them to. Can anyone back this up, does it have to do with the specific tradition of the Romanian church? Any ideas about rewriting that explanation or reorg'ing this section are bound to be positive.

Callowschoolboy 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid almost the whole Romanian section should be deleted. The current source is a vampire fan site, which on top of it all explicitly prohibits copying its content on Wikipedia's terms - and most sentences in the Wikipedia version were just copied from it.--Anonymous44 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tried to reword it, tightened it up and tagged it for starters, but someone should take a second look at the wordings to avoid any accusation of copyvio. Ultimately, a proper source should be found. What a pity I don't read Romanian, I bet there is some serious ethnological material online in that language. --Anonymous44 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the article, it says...

Jonathan Harker is warned that at midnight “all the evil things in the world will have full sway.”[22][this source's reliability may need verification]

I just wanted to say that even though the source may need verification in other aspects, that bit is true. In my copy of "Dracula", a local says to Harker...

"It is the eve of St. George’s Day. Do you not know that tonight, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway?"

However I don't know how to put this right since I'm not familiar with the standards of Wikipedia, etc, so if anyone can do it in my stead so that I don't mess up...

PoisonedQuill 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I placed the tag, and I meant it to apply to the whole section (as does the footnote). But now I realize that both can be easily misinterpreted as referring to the preceding concrete claim, so I moved both to the end of the section and added some explanations in the markup. This may still be confusing, but I guess that's inevitable, as long as the sources are indicated by means of footnotes. --Anonymous44 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused and can't really find any decent literature on this. So, during the Holy Communion, people ingest wafers and wine to take in the body and blood of Christ. Does that effectively link vampirism to Christianity? If so, what kind of conclusions can be made about vampires being "demons"? Any help would really be appreiciated. 76.179.131.160 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The derogatory term Gypsie should be removed, huh? Anyone do this, I'm a Noob without a Name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.6.145.247 (talk) 18:40, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

How is that term derogatory? I am not from the western culture, and wish to understand it and not to offend people when I use the term. Since I never heard of it being an offending term to use against people. MythSearcher^talk 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the IP is right, but in this case I'm split as to whether it should be changed or not -- "gypsy" is easily the most common, perhaps even approaching the only, term known; "Roma", "Romani", or any other variations tend to result in blank stares. While I've never supported the "dumbing down" philosophy, and would prefer people to learn things correctly, this is a pretty extreme case.

As for how it's derogatory, the stereotypical connotations of the word are that they are all thieves, good for nothing, sometimes beggers, most likely live on the street, not the same quality as "normal" society, and things like that. There's a very common phrase (around here anyhow) that parents say when kids misbehave, "[Watch out], or we'll throw you to the gypsies", which perhaps explains both issues (derogatory, common usage) a bit better. -Bbik^★ 03:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I fully understand this. I guess it will be hard for people out of the culture to. To me, the term simply means a certain group of people that go around places and don't stay at a spot long enough(Yes, I know I have no knowledge in this). Although I have heard of the throw you to the gypsies phrase, it is quite common around where I live to have parents using sentences that translate to "[Watch out], or we'll throw you to your teacher" or teachers and policemen using sentences like "[Watch out], or we'll throw you to you parents". So I thought of the sentence about gypsies is actually just another one of these. Thank you for the explanation, now at least I won't offend people by accidentally calling them gypsies. MythSearcher^talk 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as vampire lore in Japan. It's a novel concept, introduced in the Japanese cinema of the 50's. There are some folkloric creatures that have vampiric atributes, but these are minor, local concepts. All in all, I don't think it's even appropriate to have a section on vampires in Japan, since the other sections deal with peoples that actually have a rich vampire lore. I also made the kyūketsuki (which is basically just the Japanese word for the vampire, as it appears in modern fiction) into a redirect here. TomorrowTime 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)