Talk:Vampire/Archive 1

(Untitled discussions)
Is this complete nonsense?


 * See also Leechism, Louseism, Chiggerism, Tickism, Mosquitoism. Ortolan88


 * Is Chiggerism when bored rich kids pretent to live in Chigwell? -- Tarquin

seems sensible to me Lir 20:54 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

The vampirism and vampire subculture articles could be combined into one article. --Ed Poor

Lir, let's try to distinguish between the mainstream accepted biological concept -- and the legendary bite-the-pretty-girl-on-the-neck spiritual concept. Making that distinction would improve the article, and you're just the girl to do it! (And if you refuse, please don't say "Bite me!") --Ed Poor

---

"Vampiric cults have been in existence throughout history". Pending cites, I'm going to believe this is bunk.

Obviously you aren't familiar with the common practice of human's eating each other in order to gain the powers of their enemy. Lir 21:15 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am. So, please add that to the article, if I may assign you work. --Ed Poor

"the common practice of human's eating each other in order to gain the powers of their enemy" -- Personally, I wouldn't call this "vampirism", I'd call this "cannibalism".

Ed -- please do not encourage Lir to make this article even murkier and less-informative! Adding content will not help, when the added content only obscures different distinctions.

Lir -- you are referring to what English-speakers call cannibalism, not Vampirism. Moreover, it is far from clear that cannibals uniformly or even generally eat others in order to gain their "powers," although this is sometimes the case. There are other ways by which humans acquire the power of others -- e.g. the labor contract (do you consider capitalism a form of vampirism?) and, well, reading Jack Welsch's memoires, I guess. Would you include a baby nursing?

My point: to take every form through which humans have gained the powers of others (reading books, nursing, cannibalism) and lunp them all together as a form of "vampiric cult" is both to misinform people of the tremendous diversity of ways of being human, to misinform people about vampirism, and to misinform (and perhaps insult) cannibals. Slrubenstein

Well, you people should know by know that I most certainly considered capitalism to be a form of vampirism. I have not equated cannibalism and vampirism. Lir 21:29 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

vampirisim is about more than drinking human blood Lir 21:31 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
 * Okay, please add material on what else vampirism means;

and drinking human blood is not necessarily vampiric Lir 21:32 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)
 * and add material on cases of drinking blookd that is not vampiric,


 * BUT please in all clases distinguish between the distinct groups of people who use the term differently. Hollywood film directors, medical doctors, and self-identified vampires probably use the term differently and accord it different meaning.  As you add material please be careful to make clear what point of view you are informing us of, thanks Slrubenstein


 * Sez you. :-)   Let's see an NPOV article, please.

And, also, SLR, Lir is (mostly) right when she says, "For npov satisfaction always try to include others statements rather than deleting!" Let us all keep in mind that serious writers disagree on whether Vampires are "real" -- even though some authors such as Anne Rice plainly regard the subject as fiction. --Ed Poor


 * You just think that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts...Lir 21:57 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * I delete only what is patently false or so vague as to be meaningless. I have no objection to anyone adding more specific and accurate information to the article.  But you cannot write -- whether it is your own paper or an encyclopedia -- without deleting. Slrubenstein


 * Due to an edit conflict, you may have missed my suggestion that Lir highlight (not obscure) the distinction between vampirisim in animal biology (vampire bat, vampire beetle); primitive belief in gaining energy from eating dead enemy's flesh; and the various (legendary) beliefs and practices which border on fiction (Dracula, Anne Rice novels). I join you in disdaining murk and applauding information. :-) Ed Poor

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=vampiric+plant

nuff said

Lir 21:59 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=vampiric+leech

way more than nuff said

Lir 22:00 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, I did miss your comment, thank you for calling it to my attention.

Ed, Lir, and others: Here is an example of what I think is a necessary deletion, to make the article better:
 * It can also be used to refer to leeches, mosquitos, various plants, or the like, which prey upon the blood or sap of other creatures.

I do not doubt that some people refer to leeches (and even some bats!) as vampires; I only point out that they do so metaphorically (the websites above Lir links to prove my point), and that to include this in the article clouds the issue and puts the cart before the horse.

It is generally known that many organisms live by feeding off of other living organisms. The correct term for this is "parasitism," and to call it "vampirism" is misleading at best.

If you want to argue that "vampires" are one form of parasite, fine. But to identify parasites as forms of vampires is just absurd. An encyclopedia must aspire to some standards, you know. Slrubenstein

But Slr--when I demand that we name the Lunik I spacecraft according to it's correct technical name, everyone says, "Oh but on wikipedia we place the common terminology even higher than the technical!"

Besides, did you know that the siphoning ability of mistletoe is interesting enough that it is specifally called, "the vampire plant" by some scientists, including myself? THAT GODDAMN PLANT IS VAMPIRIC! What about the mythology of vampiric plants? (And vampiric dogs toO!) Lir 22:09 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * Lir, I think you are right about vampiric plants, etc. Please include a section in the article about the biological POV. --Ed Poor

I am not allowed to. SLR has deleted my text. Lir 22:11 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Lir do not be a baby -- "I am not allowed to" I deleted your text because it was vague and misleading. If you want to put in a section on "Vampiric plants and animals," with a clear and explicit discussion of how any why these plants and animals are so labeled, by all means do so. And then I will suggest not deleting but dividing the article into two seperate articles, one on vampiric plants and animals (which could presumably explain their behavior in terms of selective forces and their functioning within an ecosystem), and another one on vampirism among humans (which from what I have read so far is explained in completely different terms). I will continue to delete crap. But I guess I have a higher opinion of you than you have of yourself, because I am absolutely certain that you are capable of writing stuff that isn't crap, and that will not be deleted. Slrubenstein

I am sorry slr-I can not conceive what is wrong with

It can also be used to refer to leeches, mosquitos, various plants, or the like, which prey upon the blood or sap of other creatures.

As you see, the term vampiric/vampirism can be used (as in regards to) various creatures (say mosquitors for instance, or leeches, or certain plants) which prey upon the fluids of other creatures.

I mean, hey, maybe your ability to determine what is and isn't crap, is itself crap. Lir 22:20 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * Maybe! But you defined vampirism as involving the gaining of supernatural power or qi.  Do you mean, then that leeches and missletoe seek supernatural powers?  Sorry, that is crap.  If there are other plants and animals that are "vampiric" in one sense, and people who are "vampiric" in another, I think two separate articles makes more sense.  But certainly, if you put the two sets of cases in one article, you must make the distinctions clear.  Otherwise, as I already said, it is misleading. Slrubenstein

If its misleading to you, then plz add clarifications so you are no longer confused. I certainly never thought that leeches sought supernatural powers. What an absurd notion. Lir 22:26 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

I suggest that the 2 of you take turns. SLR, why not be a gentleman and let Lir have the article for next hour? You and I can sit here on the sidelines and make helpful comments on the talk page. --Ed Poor


 * Ed, I know you are trying to be constructive and I agree with you in spirit. But there have been eight changes to the article (including a couple made by Lir) since my last change, and given this fact your comment seems a bit patronizing.  I think Lir have had a pretty constructive discussion through which some important points have been made -- I try to be even clearer, below.  (I am sorry if Lir disagrees, and sorry that you seem to disagree, Ed), Slrubenstein


 * I have nothing more to add to the article at this point. Im just waiting for SLR to figure out what was so confusing and crappy about my sentence. Lir 22:30 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * Lir, I was perfectly clear about what was crappy about what you wrote: it followed a general definition of "vampirism" that defined it in terms of the quest for qi. Please, before you add text read what comes before and after -- often times the meaning of an utterance is determined by its context.  I am glad that you agree with me, that to claim that leeches seek supernatural powers is an absurd notion.  That is precisely why I deleted the claim.  If you want to contribute material on "vampirism" in plants and animals you must do so in a way that makes it clear that it has nothing to do with the quest for qi.  As I states, I think such material belongs in a separate article.  As I stated, the dangers of readers of this encyclopedia lumping the two phenomena together (missletoe and leeches, versus humans who consume blood for religious or metaphysical reasons) must be avoided.  Why do you disagree with me?  Or have you had enough time to figure it out? Slrubenstein

It wasn't so bad. But there are now 5 different people editing this article simultaneously. It would be better if we discussed disagreements, rather than deleting text. There is no harm in letting a "competing" version stay up for a few minutes. --Ed Poor

I'd like to add something the following: Let's also distinguish between
 * In biology, vampirism is ...
 * And mention the Vampire Plant (mistletoe) plus the vampire bat and vampire beetle.
 * vampirism in nature as observed by biologists
 * folklore and made-up stories about vampirism
 * substantial, serious belief about gaining spiritual or other power through drinking human blood, eating *yecch* human flesh, or whatever --Ed Poor


 * Ed, I think this is very constructive -- good job. I would only add that if we keep all of this stuff in the same article (I suggest two separate articles, but if other contributors prefer one, okay by me), that it be clearly divided into at least two major sections (as used by biologists applied to non-human species, and as used by people concerning people), with a general introduction that explains the differences between the two sections. Slrubenstein

Following on some remarks by SLR above:
 * 1) I don't know what "patronizing" means; I am telling you to be nicer to Lir: she's young and sensitive.
 * 2) If you confuse the person you're trying to educate, it's not "constructive", so I appreciate your efforts to be clearer (see also my detailed suggestions above).
 * 3) I have no idea what you think I disagree with :-) --Ed Poor

Is Lir kidding when she says "You just think that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts...Lir"? -- Tarquin 23:20 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

No. Lir 23:23 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Considering how fleshed-out the main vampire article is right now, this article seems pretty redundant. I vote that any non-duplicate content be merged from here to there, and this article be made a redirect to the vampire article. Thoughts? -Sean 08:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It's been over a month and nobody seems to have an opinion one way or the other. I still support m,erging the article into vampire; any objections? -Sean Curtin 17:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have been bold and merged vampirism into vampire. -Sean Curtin 23:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OCD
The article mentions the compulsion to count having mostly dissapeared from pop colture. I seem to recall an X-Files episode where this comes up. I also remember reading something about shoe tieing (which I think was mentioned in teh x-files episode as well. Can anyone confirm?

Auric the Rad's
Auric the Rad's Vampire watermelon hoax strikes the right tone... Wetman 07:03, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)I think we've made good progress on this page, but now it needs to be refactored (I am referring to Vampire, not this /Talk page).

Silver
I always thought silver was good against Werewolfs, not vampires? Can anyone explain that?

I think that both this and the daywalker stuff come next to exclusively from the movie Blade, which wasn't a particularly traditional view on vampires, or something close to it. I tried some searching to find any references...vampire with anything like "silver kills" reveals nothing classical, although I might have missed some combination (just silver gives to many false hits to cut down). Definitely daywalker got nothing other than RPGs and movies. Neither of these are listed on Britannica's page or any of the kid's books I can remember.

Weakness to sun is a relatively recent element of the vampire myths: most Slavic folklore monsters could walk in the sun without too much problems (I seem to remember a type of vampire who by day looked like an attractive human, and by night a horrible monster). I've also read that in the very Dracula novel (NOT in the films based on it) old Vlad Tepes himself takes a leisurely stroll through some English park during daytime. 62.94.130.58

Supposedly the notion of silver as a bane of evil things comes from Judas having accepted payment of silver in exchange for betraying Christ. In taditional lore there is no connection to vampirism -- silver is a werewolf thing....


 * The silver bullet is an element of black magic in Der Freisch&uuml;tz. Spooky but nor vampiric. Wetman 19:30, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the romantic comedy "Love at First Bite" - George Hamilton's Dracula laughs at silver bullets. - Sparky 03:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Classic vampires are killed by a wooden stake through the heart. Silver as being efficacious against vampires (and in Blade, it was not silver but a concoction of mercury, garlic, blood with vampirism antibodies, etc which was supposed to do the trick) is very recent and poorly supported - hardly part of traditional vampire myth yet.

The rationale behind the silver thing is that silver is supposed to have properties that make it resistant to evil. Don't ask me to elaborate, I read it in an old book. I do remember it said that silver hurt vampires, particularly silver crosses did the trick. It also of course mentioned the silver bullet killing werewolves. There is nothing special about the bullet, its the silver. Apparently silver could also be used to expose witches. BTW, hazelwood was the preferred wood for killing vapires. It was supposed to have evil-resistant properties as well.

I believe that the silver as dangerous to vampires theory has basis in history. --Alan D

Bram Stoker introduced us to "undead," of course, contemporaneously with the modernized legend of Vlad Drakul - aka "Vlad the Impaler" who was a quite real old-time prince who terrorized local peasants by hanging the heads and bodies of those who displeased him from stakes outside the "castle" or manor house.


 * Silver is supposed to hurt vampires, but not to kill them. At least in Slavic mythology, where modern concept of vampires originated from Szopen

Silver being harmful has to do with its purity as a metal. Also, most medieval crosses were silver.

ALSO: Silver is (was) used as mirror backing, hence the "no reflection" deal, and cameras use mirrors, so no showing up on tape, and photos are developed in silver nitrate, so hence the "no photos" deal. Gnrlotto

wouldnt a silver bullet kill just about anything anyway? i mean if you shoot your nieghbour witha silver bullet, theyll probly die, that doesnt make them a were wolf or a vamire... logically, its probly just an excuse for idiots to go shooting people  pretending they arent really peopel, hence the claim that werewolves, once dead, revert to thier human form " he had fur i tell you! not five minutes ago! really!" etc

GabrielSimon

Literature about Lycanthropy / werewolf
Silver bullets are supposed to kill werewolves. Until a movie was made on the subject, I wonder if there was any substantial literary classic involving lycanthropy (people turning into wolves) to which we can refer, or if oral tradition is all there is to fall back on. Oral tradition does go back hundreds of years, at least. Szopen

I think there's some instances of lycanthropy amongst the ancient Greeks. There should be a book on my shelves somewhere with a detailed history of this sort of thing...

Dracula, Dracul and Folk Tradition
Getting back to vampires, it's interesting to see how Bram Stoker's Dracula was an assortment of folk traditions, grafted onto a more or less Roman Catholic framework of demonic possession; his Dracula is effectively the corpse of Vlad Dracul possessed by a demon - hence the crucifix & holy water being so effective. - I have some reservations about the works listed on the previous page: Nosferatu is simply a take on the dracula story; Bram Stoker's widow in fact sued the people involved with the film for copyright violation and won, which does not mean that the work does not deserve mention; but Salem's Lot is also a take on the Dracula legend which has merely been updated and moved to New England. Stephen King has admitted as much himself, and says the novel came about from a comment made when he had a friend over and they were discussing Stoker's novel: Tabitha King said that today Dracula would get run over by a cab at the airport and that would be the end of it. The parallels between the two works are obvious enough to anyone who them both.

How about mentioning vampire legends which do *not* depend so heavily on Stoker's work? e.g. works by Anne Rice, and, um, well that's all I can think of. :-) I haven't read up on vampires much, which was why I followed this link.  :-)

Certainly, there is a school of vampiric writing which derives more from le Fanu's work than Stoker's. sjc

There is no evidence that Stoker ever heard of a Vlad Drakul or Vlad the Impaler while doing his research for the book, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. -- corvus13

Also, there is no evidence which suggests that he hadn't. Moreover, the setting in Transylvania indicates that he was probably aware of it. But I have expanded the original author's description of Stoker's sources to cover all bases. sjc

Actually, there is evidence that he didn't. See "Dracula: Sense and Nonsense" by Elizabeth Miller. --corvus13

This is kind of academic. Stoker had a friendship with a Hungarian professor who may well have related the story, but nothing is provable in either direction. Unless Stoker walks again, that is... sjc

On the contrary, it is quite documented. Stoker worked as the secretary of Henry Irving, probably the greatest English actor of his time, and among Irving's friends was Arminius Vambery (true name Hermann Bamberger), a famous explorer who travelled all over Eastern Europe and Middle East, and would become the mentor of the legendary Sven Hedin. Another of Irving's admirators was Sir Richard Burton, the famous explorer of Africa, who had also written a book about Indian vampiric myths (Vikram and the Vampyre); probably while talking about this book, Vambery began telling of the vast Hungarian vampiric folklore, and if I remember correctly it was he who made the connection to Vlad 'Tepes' Dracula, though I don't believe he suggested the historical prince could have been a vampire. Stoker, inspired, wrote a drama about Vlad, finding the character fitting to his master Irving (who was famous for acting supernatural or mythical roles, such as Mephistopheles); Irving, however, refused. And as we all know, the tale of Vlad Dracula ended up as a novel... 62.94.130.58

re: the above discussion -- however valuable research into the origins and making of various vampire texts (Stoker versus Rice, for example), it shouldn't be at the expense of what I think is far more important -- what accounts for the popularity of these texts. Has anyone done research on the changing meaning of vampire stories to their audience? It seems to me that what was once a spoof of the Catholic Mass now has rather more to do with AIDS. Slrubenstein

Talk from Vampire subculture

Cite? Or is this complete bull?

yah its real-but its not like you are gonna find a "credible" source on it-unless you go look around yourself

Should vampirism be a separate article, or contained in Vampire?
 * separate: User:Ed Poor, Hephaestos
 * contained:

I'm going to separate the articles, even though there have only been 2 votes so far. If someone objects, please "vote" and also explain your objection. --Ed Poor

From the current version: "According to Orthodox Christian belief, the soul does not depart the body until 40 days after it has been buried. " This sounds like nonsense. Does it have any basis in fact? -- Someone else 04:29 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)


 * None whatsoever. So it fits right in here Wetman 19:30, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is also Chinese Vampire, it is completely unrelated to Vampire in this article. However, there were some Hong Kong movies mixing them together. One film even talks about an undead missionary able to change from one type to another, and the only way to defeat him is by combining chinese magic and the Christian cross.......

I think if we feel the need to include multiple languages, it should be in another section. It isn't a major detail to be included in the introductory paragraph. This is not a dictionary or pronounciation guide. BarkingDoc

What is missing from this article is: How does one become a vampire? The reproductive strategy of a vampire is quite different than a human. Kingturtle 02:37, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * There are quite a fair number of different means that have been professed, and the origin of vampires has changed every bit as much over time as the image of vampires has. The notion of vampires as an infective race (or reproductive) is incredibly new in the history of vampire lore. BarkingDoc

Shouldn't there be a section on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. These are no firm parts of Western popular culture. Also Anne Rice should receive more attention: ChrisG 11:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Buffy and Rice both have their own fairly well developed articles. Despite their current popularity, they are a fairly small part of the scope of informatioon available. BarkingDoc

A page on vampires which does not even mention it's (in current form) origins in Slavic folklor... wonderful. szopen

This quote is copied from http://www.vampgirl.com/vamp-encmyth.html:

Even inanimate objects and animals were thought to be able to become vampires: pumpkins, watermelons and other fruit that was left out past a certain amount of time, latches that were left unlatched too long, yokes, dogs, horses, sheep and snakes are among the objects with vampiric potential in older superstitions of the Slavic gypsy community.

It should probably be reworded

Proof that there are no vampires
Suppose there was just one vampire. Then, each vampire bites one person a week, and the person being bitten becomes a vampire. After one week, there are 2 vampires. After 2 weeks, there are 4 vampires. After 3 weeks, there are 8 vampires. After 4 weeks, there are 16 vampires. It will take only 33 weeks for the enitre world population to be made out of vampires!


 * Not all vampiric mythology states that a vampire feeding off you makes you one of them. Falcon


 * You're also assuming that there are no vampire predators. Auric The Rad 22:57, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * For comparison, consider this article, which proves statistically that the world should have been chin-deep in houseflies decades ago. --Paul A 02:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Your "proof" is formulated in vain (vein?) my friend, for I am a vampire. mnemonic 22:13, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

There is a Far Side cartoon of a guy walking past a huge mirror and seeing that everyone but him is invisible... Mark Richards 22:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most vampire mythology I have seen refers to the creation of new vampires as something a vampire only does once or twice in his lifetime. In the Vampire: The Masquerade story, an actual ratio of vampires to humans in any given area is handed down from Caine as no more than three vampires to every ten humans (I think). Most vampire mythology agrees that once a victim is fed from, they die rather than becoming vampires themselves. (Mabye you're thinking of were- mythology?) DryGrain 22:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hate to destroy all your fantasies... but all americans seem to be vampires... blood... fear... these things allow thrival of the primitive attributes of vampires... so are we all... V_Mace


 * Vampires don't usually, according to most myths, legends and other lit I've read turn their victims into vampires by feeding on them. That act is called "the blood kiss" and has to be specially bestowed, it's a bit different from feeding. If anyone could find more info on "the blood kiss" it would probably make a good addition. 66.185.84.81 05:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

what happened to Vlad the Impaler ?
what happened to Vlad the Impaler ?

The pages Vlad the Impaler and Vlad III and Vlad Drakul are now blank, , except for a redirect to a non-existent page Vlad III Dracula.

Should I restore the Vlad the Impaler article ? Was the Vlad the Impaler article accidentally deleted ? Or am I just going to start a delete war if I restore it and then it gets deleted again ?

There's still a snapshot at http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:mQcq1YDRZS8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_Drakul+vlad+the+impaler&hl=en if someone wants to restore it.

-- anonymous


 * I have restored the text from the snapshot. Deadstar not logged on

Meaning of vampire orginally
It is to my understanding that vampire orginally meant... one who we have reason to fear... werewolf... bloodsucker... witch... seventh son of a seventh son... criminal... ect... Bram is not to blame for the change... he specifically stated in the novel that that vampire was a nosferatu... ~Vampirate_Mace
 * Merriam-Webster lists it as coming from French, from German Vampir, from Serbo-Croation vampir. No original meanings are listed, so I assume all of these words shared the same meaning as the current English "vampire." I don't have access to an OED right now, but does someone want to check etymology there? At any rate, I don't see anything to support the "one who we have reason to fear" possibility; seems more likely that it came from a Serbo-Croatian myth. Hah, didn't notice the etymology section. Still an unattributed opinion there, though. Mariko

It was a Russian word I think... made up to discribe some prince I believe... it was orginally spelt vampyr then vampyre and finally vampire... - V_Mace

"Missionaries
"It is also widely theorized that missionaries and other new elements of the population brought new strains of disease, resulting in a greatly increased number of "mysterious" deaths during the period." The passive voice of non-attribution again: the individual who made this up thought that Romania was an isolated outback. Romania has been the main passage between the steppes, Greece and the Balkans for 3 millennia. A main traffic artery for plague too. Can we remove this assertion? Wetman 07:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How about adding the name of this individual? I don't think there's any reason to remove the assertion, but it ought to be attributed. Mariko

Possible rewrite?
I'm thinking this article needs a major organizational rewrite, so we can specify which magical properties listd apply to vampires in each specific listed book or movie in which they apear. For example, vampires from Blade, vampires from books by Anne Rice, and vampires from White Wolf games differ greatly in thier attributes. I'm thinking we should perhaps create subheadings for each story/book/movie/gaming environment and explain the unique attributes of the vampires from those specific stories, as compared with the original or earliest recorded vampire story (whether it is the bit about Homer's Odyssey mentioned in the article, or stories based on Prince Vladimir, or whatever gets decided upon.) I think that specifying these things would make the article a lot better. For example, someone who playsWhite Wolf games would conjure up a completely different definition of the word "vampire" in thier head than, say, someone who had just read Salem's Lot. I don't know if I'm alonein this opinion or not, so I'm thinking that mabye wecan get a few votes on whether or not to do the rewrite? (I wanted to get an opinion before I went ahead and did such a major change myself.) DryGrain 09:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are suggesting, but I don't see why such a major change is needed; the article includes links to all the major authors, movies and TV series ... those who want such detail will follow the links. To duplicate such detail here would lead to a very, very long article, and one that might be confusing.

The current format, which attempts to look at major interpretations of aspects of vampirism, with crosslinks - seems ok, but could perhaps be tidied up and further divided with clearer headings; Becoming a Vampire, Identifying Vampires, Destroying Vampires ... that kind of thing? Heenan73 09:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean go into an in-depth summary of the plots and story details, but merely something ike this (just for example):


 * Blade
 * Vampires in the Blade story are susceptiple to the following: silver, ultraviolet light (including sunlight) etc. They have the power to retract thier fangs and they participate in mortal's affairs. Et cetera.


 * Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles'
 * Vampires in Anne Rice's novels are susceptiple to sunlight, fire, and also tend to be more philosophical than other vampires, sometimes causing thier own inner torture. They are immortal, become stronger with age and can go into hibernation. Most of them want nothing to do with the world of mortals, but there have been a sizable number of exceptions. According to Anne Rice, vampires were created by an ancient Egyptian king and queen, (forgot his name) and Akasha. Et cetera.

As you can see, all I think we should do is merely define the unique traits of vampires in each particular story, so that the reader can compare them. I fully agree that the article would become long and messy if we included too much info about the individual stories; as you said, they are wikilinked. However, I've actually needed a reference like this at one point, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I had read a really good book having to do with vampires years back and wanted to recommend it to someone, but I had forgotten the title. Regardless of if anyone else were in this particular situation, I think it would be a major informational addition to the whole article if story-specific details were given, as they are all seperate definitions of the word vampire. DryGrain 10:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but it's 'media centered' not vampire focussed.

I'd be sympathetic to (for example)

Sunlight
Generally considered the one certain method of destruction, usually leading to spontaneous combustion, but vampires in Buffy have escaped with mild smoking effects, and Warhol, inconsistent as ever, largely ignores the tradition. Certain movies have allowed a drop of blood on the ashes to be enough to restore the vampire, suggesting there is no final disposal....

So you'd be going with the consensus, and recording major dissenters. Again, wikilinks should avoid duplication. But enough from me, let's see what others think ... Heenan73 12:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the "consensus and mention of dissenters" approach, perhaps with the consensus opinions prefaced by "In most folklore, vampires are represented as..." or "In many stories, vampires..." A separate section for each legend seems overkill; separation by aspects of vampires, however, makes sense to me. Any other opinions? Mariko

Is moonlight known to have any effect? It is reflected sunlight after all... Auric The Rad 02:57, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not alot. Light covers a broad band, and only certain wavelengths have any effect. these are all found in Sunlight, but not (much if at all) in reflected light. That's why 'bright light' might well be a waste of time - but bright natural light - ie sunlight will be effective. I've been trying to reduce this stuff to actual wavelengths, but no success as yet!  Heenan73 10:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mirrors
"It is believed that vampires have no reflection, as traditionally it was thought that mirrors reflected your soul and creatures of evil have no soul. Fiction has extended this belief to an actual aversion to mirrors, as depicted in Bram Stoker's novel Dracula when the vampire casts Harker's shaving mirror out of the window."

This "aversion" doesn't seem like a distinct belief added to the folklore, but rather a natural consequence of three other beliefs:
 * 1) Vampires have no reflection
 * 2) Vampires are intelligent
 * 3) Vampires do not want to be recognized as vampires

130.94.161.238 18:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The listing of powers and origins for various fictional vampires belong in those fictions' specific articles rather than in the main vampire article. This article is already fairly lengthy, and already links to the various fictional vampires. -Sean Curtin 21:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Garlic
I have read (many years ago) that vampiric aversion to garlic is related to old folklore concerning the origin of garlic. It was said that garlic plants sprung forth from the right footprints of the Devil, when he walked on earth. (Onions came from the left footprints.) Also, this "origin of garlic" was connected to a vampire's aversion to it. I thought it might be an interesting addition, if anyone can verify this (also note, I may have my lefts and rights confused...) Taiichi 12:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can get actual (nonfiction) sources for this, sure, but it doesn't mesh with what I've read. DreamGuy 19:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)