Talk:Vampire/Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016
The etymology of the word "VAMPIRE" derives from Albanian language "DHAMPIRE" which means drinking with teeth. "DHAM-PIRE" from here "DHAM" means teeth, "PIRE" means drink, so "VAMPIRE" in fact is "DHAMPIRE" which mean teeth-drink or drinking with teeth. The creature who drinks humans blood with teeth "DHAMPIRE". Later Slavs of Balkans like Serbs changed the word from "DHAMPIRE" which word has meaning in Albanian to "VAMPIRE" which no body knows what means and has no etymology. The word "VAPIRE" etymology is coming from Albanian or you can say Illyrian language. Vampires mythology is coming from Illyrian peninsula or later from Balkan peninsula. More exactly from Illyrians or later Albanians. In English language pronunciation would be "THUMPYR" in Albanian "DHAMPIRE". https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhampir.

ArbenOsmani (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
The article on dhampir says the 'pir/pyr' part means 'drink' and thus a dhampir is one who drinks with teeth. surely being only one major consonant away, vampir/vampire/vampyr would have a similar origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It could be a case of folk etymology, where the words converged despite having different origins. --90.199.98.121 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out a while ago there is a lot of debate on the where the term "vampire" came from. According to Skol's V for Vampire "vampire" didn't even exist in the English language until 1732 and no one is entirely sure just where it came from (Turkish (Oxford English dictionary), Lithuanian (Vampire Encyclopedia), Vampir- a term used for a particular blood draining/strangling reverent out of the Slavic states have all been suggested as possible origins). It is like trying to look for what is now known as "silhouette" before 1759, sadism before Marquis de Sade lived, or many other examples--the term simply didn't exist so you get connection by association.  Which is why you have living people (witches and sorcerers)  labeled as "vampires"; the term is being applied to something similar in nature.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a nice map of the word. 212.200.65.81 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017
A vampire is a being from folklore who subsists by...

change to

A vampire is a being from folklore that subsists by...

Subclause is essential not incidental, therefore that is required instead of who. 174.19.226.199 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "vampire" is a supernatural human "being". While "being" is subjective, a "who" characterizes a "vampire". Using "that" makes "vampire"... less human or less of a person. Nonetheless, my viewpoint would be seeing as too politically correct, so I'll let someone else decide to answer this edit request. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll pay that - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Porphyria
I'm sticking this discussion here in an effort to avoid an edit war; the info on porphyria is inaccurate, but rather than just edit the article, I'll discuss it here and wait for any discussion prior to editing.

Currently (may 22 2017), the article claims that porphyria as a plausible historic source of vampire folklore has been "largely discredited," and references an article from Scientific American as proof. I read the article, and in fact it does not discredit the idea at all. It does discuss the biology of the disease, types of porphyria and their symptoms, methods of treatment and future therapies, and it also says "historical victims of the worst, most disfiguring forms may have inspired tales of werewolves and vampires."

I propose to change this inaccuracy if no one can offer better documentation that porphyria's plausible contribution to the genesis of vampire legends has been discredited. Cellodont (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)cellodont

Okay, answered my own question.... I will add a better reference to the article and leave it unchanged.Cellodont (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)cellodont
 * It was discredited as someone only came up with the idea recently - the connection itself wasn't old. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

POV
The neutrality of "Film and Television" section is ambiguous, if existent at all. We should avoid bias and hyperbole when talking about any subject matter, especially in Featured Articles. It's not our job to hype said subject matter, but to provide an encyclopedic, objective understanding with the proper citations.  Dark Knight  2149  20:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * O-kay ...as of the current version. Which particular words or sentences are you objecting to? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just the plain bias and non-encyclopedic way the section is written. In the diff above, I removed a couple of the phrases. Frankly, it reads more like a loving editorial than a properly written Wikipedia article that adheres to our Manual of Style (take a look at WP:PEACOCK). "The legend of the vampire was cemented in the film industry when Dracula was reincarnated for a new generation with the celebrated Hammer Horror series of films, starring Christopher Lee as the Count." Even with that sentence removed, I'm not entirely sure that this section is neutral. It's really the way the entire section is written; when you can tell the writer of the article has a love for the subject matter, it's not entirely neutral - "The legend of the vampire continued through the film industry...", "Considered one of the preeminent figures of the classic horror film, the vampire has proven to be a rich subject for the film and gaming industries.", "By the 1970s, vampires in films had diversified with works such as Count Yorga, Vampire", "Later films showed more diversity in plotline, with some focusing on the vampire-hunter, such as...", "which proved partly responsible for making the series one of the most popular of its type", "This increase of interest in vampiric plotlines led to the vampire being depicted in films such as...", ETC. Maybe a couple of instances of this type of phrasing are acceptable, but the entire section is written this way with nothing to balance it out. Do you disagree that this section is adhering to a specific P.O.V.?  Dark Knight  2149  03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see any POV problems with this section at all. None of the sentences you have quoted here sound like a "loving editorial," or at least not in my opinion. From what it looks like, it seems you are reading too deeply into the statements and inferring biases where none exist. The statements you have quoted here are places where the article merely states that vampire films are popular, or that vampire films from a certain era display a broad range of diversity, or that vampire legends have provided inspiration to a large number of films. None of these statements are POV-pushing or biased; they are simply stating facts. This section is not violating WP:PEACOCK either and, trust me, I have seen articles that are definitely peacocks; they usually make superlative statements like "Walther von der Vogelweide was the greatest of all medieval German lyric poets" or "The Swallow song of Rhodes is the most famous of all ancient Greek folk songs." If this section were truly a peacock, it would probably being saying things like "Vampire films are the best movies of all time" or "Everyone on earth loves vampire films." Instead, it does not say anything of the sort. If you really think that the section has a problem, I suppose the language could perhaps be toned down a little bit, but I am not sure how much you could really change. I think it is fine the way it currently is, but I will not object to any changes, as long as they are improvements and do not degrade the writing style. (I should perhaps note that I do not really watch vampire films; this page is only on my watchlist because I am interested in the folkloric aspect.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how old you are but the 1958 Hammer Dracula was seen as a landmark in reviving interest in vampires in film after a significant hiatus and spawned a whole swathe of vampire movies. Due to the sheer number of movies, we only try to mention standout ones...which necessitates some description of why they are significant. Sill, I will look and see if I have any ideas on toning it down. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vampire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614081137/http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/vampire to http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/vampire
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225025712/http://kapija.narod.ru/Ethnoslavistics/zub_period.htm to http://kapija.narod.ru/Ethnoslavistics/zub_period.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
I removed the infobox as it was useless to the point of being misleading.


 * It was classified as a Legendary creature - we-ell it sort of is in a very broad sense of the term, but as much as Bigfoot or Nessie is really. Arbitrary.
 * It was sub-classified as undead - usually true I guess.
 * Similar creatures are completely arbitrary - demons and werewolves are not undead, but ghouls, ghosts, mummies and zombies are, should they be listed as more similar?
 * Vampires are actually pretty cosmopolitan if you read the article, so a random list of some countries where they are is a bit ..unhelpful.

If someone has any ideas on how to make a useful infobox I am all ears. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead image
I noticed there was some back and forth over the caption for the lead image and reverted; since then I realised that the long-standing image had been changed to the one of Dracula in this edit. I have changed it back to the original as I feel it is more appropriate. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Actually, I'd also remove the infobox altogether as I don't think it adds anything and, again, it was not included when the article gained FA status.
 * I must say I wasn't fond of the Christopher Lee on. Also had missed the infobox. Hmmm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely think the Philip Burne-Jones illustration is a much better image than the Christopher Lee photograph. Actually, when the main image was changed, the Burne-Jones illustration was deleted from the article entirely. I was the one who restored it to the "Psychodynamic theories" section. The article underwent a fair bit of degradation when it was the "Today's Featured Article." This degradation included the addition of the confusing infobox and the replacement of the Burne-Jones illustration with the Christopher Lee photograph, as well as some other, less noticeable changes. There were so many edits happening in such a short span of time that I was unable to keep up with all the changes that were being made. I think most of them were probably improvements, but there were also a few perplexing edits that I was not so sure about. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually an article I have at TFA is a low traffic one, so little happens. I'll try and compare versions and see what else has changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017
80.193.67.130 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Add the channel 4 series Ultraviolet.
 * We have a lot of TV shows listed already. what makes it more notable than the ones listed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, there should be reliable sources that establish that this series is notable for its portrayal of vampires. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vampire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128025458/http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Policante.pdf to http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Policante.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

More recent reference
Anyone interested might want to see if adding Theresa Bane's 2010 Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology McFarland & Company ISBN 978-0-7864-4452-6 is warranted. McFarland & Company seems to fall into the reliable sources category though I am not sure about it's author fitting notable criteria.--172.75.14.11 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have seen this book before. It depends - is there anything notable in the book that is not currently in the article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO it provides much need references as there a large sections of the article that are in need of them.--2606:A000:7D44:100:5868:4067:CBF6:8DD5 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point out these spots? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any place where a source that in a language other then English is used. It is far easier to cross check a reference if it is in the language that the page itself is.--172.75.14.11 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. Depends on the quality of the respective sources too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Western Europe and increased superstition in 19th century?
In the intro, mention is made of an "influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe" and an "increased level of vampire superstition" in the 19th century. Is this true? It desn't appear to be in the body of the article. I would think instead that the 19th century influx to Western Europe was one of literary inspiration, not superstition, and that superstition in this matter did not increase in Eastern or Western Europe at this time.--Pharos (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It means specifically around vampires - the stories/folklore spread from east to west. It is covered in the body from Medieval and later European folklore (the essence of this influx is spread across many paras). This is one of the busiest articles I have had to watch over the past 10 years. The dissertations section was not added by me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading over that section, it looks like "increased vampire superstition" (meaning the panic and legal cases) applies to mostly Eastern Europe in the 18th century, and "influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe" (meaning more stories than belief) applies to the 18-19th century, with discussion (including theological) of the panic preceding the literary use. This could be clearer.--Pharos (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. Will muse on this...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Superstition" versus "folk belief"
Is there a particular reason why this article frequently uses the pejorative superstition (superstition) over the academic term folk belief (folk belief)? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm...not really. I confess I had not thought of it that way before, and now that you mention it, it makes sense to use a non-judgemental term. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those aren't remotely synonyms, let alone one being a euphemism for the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Saberhagen Books?
Maybe I just missed it, but under the In Literature section, I didn't see a reference to the Dracula books by Fred Saberhagen. Starting with THE DRACULA TAPES, where the count refutes the entirety of Bram Stoker's book, its the First of Nine. THE HOLMES-DRACULA FILE relates how the two collaborate in finding Jack the Ripper. There are nine books in the series, reaching well into modern times.
 * There have been so many books, movies, television shows, and other adaptations of vampires legends that we could not possibly mention all of them, nor would we want to. This article only mentions adaptations that have significantly impacted how the population at large views vampires. If you want Saberhagen's books to be mentioned, you would need at least one independent reliable source talking about how they have influenced modern perception of vampires. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019
I want to add information about the first known vampire. Hughes05 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Link does not work
The reference link to vampire skeletons being found in Bulgaria (http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/vampire-skeletons-120606.htm) does not work. The link goes to advertising a content management system called RebelMouse. J I P &#124; Talk 12:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a BBC ref of same news. Used that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Theresa Bane's Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology
Bane, Theresa (2010) Encyclopedia of Vampire Mythology McFarland is effectively the reference work on vampires and vampire myths around the world and should be a references for this page. Especially as it lists 600 (yes that is six hundred) types of vampires and vampire like creatures.

There is a digital version of the book at Internet Archive as well as a totally digital version at enacademic.com.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the entries are pretty brief but if gives some leads for material to chase up in scholarly journals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A reference; perhaps of use?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2019/09-10/vampire-mania-in-eastern-europe/ --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks (belatedly), I think we have all that in the article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Better belated, then never =) --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Another jumbled article that's excruciating to read
How on earth as this a featured article? It's atrocious! It's just a jumbled up collection of anecdotes that doesn't have an narrative sense. It starts by going through what are the modern views of a vampire, then it jumps back to its origins, then it jumps to how these beliefs might have started, then it jumps to how the Vampire is treated in fiction.

The whole article sucks. But as usual, another crap article is protected.

The article should follow like this:


 * History/origins/Earliest
 * theories as to why peoples believed in them
 * modern period/modern interpretations and myths
 * modern usage in literature

The story of the vampire, is just that, a story, not a random series of facts copy pasted together. Impossible to read article because it's so garbled. Simple as. 81.153.37.0 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Impossible to read article
 * Straight to the hyperbole, eh? Frankly, "narrative sense" doesn't really apply to an encyclopedic article. We want to provide the most relevant information to the reader first, which in this case is the modern information. Fewer people are coming here for the historic/theoretical information. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

New TV show
Heirs of the night is a vampire TV show

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirs_of_the_Night — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.189.243 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The series hasn't even aired yet. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Animation & Comedy
Please include in the film and television section the animated series/franchises of "The Groovie Goolies", "Count Duckula" and "Hotel Transylvania" and the comedy tv/film franchise "The Munsters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact these shows happen to have a vampire in them is not enough to include in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect information in : Folk Beliefs -> Creating Vampires
The statement on counting fallen grains is contradicted by its own citation. Specifically, the article says "Other methods commonly practised in Europe included severing the tendons at the knees or placing poppy seeds, millet, or sand on the ground at the grave site of a presumed vampire; this was intended to keep the vampire occupied all night by counting the fallen grains,[26]", and 26 cites page 49 of Barber, Paul (1988). Vampires, Burial and Death: Folklore and Reality. New York: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-04126-2.

I pulled up the Barber book on proquest, and it says nothing about counting, and suggests that the grains are meant to occupy the vampire much longer than "all night". Specifically, it says: "Various granular substances are put into graves or strewn along the path to the graveyard in order to hinder the revenant, and these include millet, sea sand, mustard seeds, and poppy seeds." It then digresses to discuss how poppy seeds may also have been intended to have a narcotic effect on the vampire, then it comes back to our point: "I have found only one account that says explicitly that the poppy seeds are to be eaten (at the rate of one per year). Usually what is at issue a harnessing of the revenant's compulsions: he must collect the grains one at a time, and often just one grain per year. This so engages his attention that he is obliged to drop all other pursuits."

So to be clear, the source says the compulsion is not *counting* the grains, but collecting. And that it would not occupy the vampire for a night, but for years -- as many years as grains were strewn.

I have no particular interest in this, just came across the Internet claim that Sesame Street's "the Count" character's counting obsession is not just a pun on the title "Count" but also a reference to a counting obsession tied to vampires. I was pleased to find that characteristic described in the Wikipedia article, but now am disappointed to see that claim does not hold up to investigation of the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.189.57 (talk • contribs) 09:55, January 28, 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn. Just noticed this. Is worth straightening out. Will get to this in a few days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * what does this mean??? 157.35.43.186 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

First appearance in English not 1734, but before
A quick search of the British Newspaper Archive resource shows several instances of the use of the word 'vampire'/'vampyre' prior to 1734 - the date given by the OED. The earliest is that of the Caledonian Mercury of 16 March 1732, which includes a letter from several doctors in Medryga, Hungary, written on 7 January 1732, who were carrying out an investigation "Upon a current Report, that in the Village of Medreyga, certain Dead Bodies (called here Vampyres) had killed several Persons, by sucking out all their Blood". The BNA shows a 3 further usages of the word 'vampyre' in 1732. Catiline63 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting - by all means put them in then :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying what might be the earliest use by finding examples is straightforward original research, so I wouldn't encourage that. For an example of the complications it brings, the example cited above seems to be the mention of a foreign-language word, not the use of the word in English. The OED citation is from 1989 – perhaps there is a more recent source that has taken into account examples more easily found with modern tools? --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books to the rescue: I was able to find a more recent academic source supporting the 1732 date, with an ample preview to ensure the context was right (here for those with access). I've updated the article accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic - am in oz time so needed to sleep....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Finding examples of incorrect statements is not original research though as explained in Inaccuracy such conflicts have to be handled to where pointing them out doesn't cross the line.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs changes to remain a Featured Article
Hi.

In reviewing this for WP:URFA/2020, it definitely needs work. There are too many large quotations; significant oversights and gaps regarding literature and the vampire; much is written from an overly familiar, "in-universe" perspective, with some titles that seem more like Fandom headings than anything else. It’s going to require work or it will end up at WP:FAR. There is no deadline, though, and I'll eventually make my way to this one. If anyone is willing to volunteer to help, though, then I'd get to it quicker. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am following up on this notice. Have your concerns above been addressed? If the article meets the FA criteria, can you mark this article as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A? If there are still concerns, are you interested in bringing this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a response to my ping above, and I have additional concerns about this article. There's lots of short, stubby paragraphs that have been added since its FAC, some of which do not use high-quality sources or are uncited. I think this whole article will need a thorough reorganisation in order to keep its FA status. Is anyone interested in fixing this up? If no one mentions a willingness below, I will bring this to WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)