Talk:World War Z/Archive 1

Information lost
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_Z&oldid=114962441

If you look, there is more information about the book, than here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.29.18 (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps
Anyone know who could design some relavent maps-such as the location of important events in the book?

Geopolitics section
This article is plagued with a plot that is far too long and one that is written too much in an in-universe context (WP:WAF). The largest problem is the Geopolitics section: it contains absolutely way too much detail about the exact fates of each country. WP:NOT allows for a "plot summary"; the geopoltiics section is essentially a blow-by-blow account of what happens. It could easily be cut out without losing any of the article. hbdragon88 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel like it would make more sense to cut out some of the information, as it does ramble on, but leave the core. I'm going to try a trial edit - tell me what you think. --Grahamdubya 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Kudos. It's a lot more concise than before, the level of detail for every country still feels too long.  I think I'll take a stab at it later - I'm sure it's possible to cut it down to a couple of paragraphs, describing the most fundamental changes. hbdragon88 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I know what you mean. I think the space activity section could probably be dropped altogether, but I think it would be good to include at least a sentence or two about each of the countries already mentioned. I had a lot of trouble trying to pare down Russia and Israel; maybe you'll have better luck. --Grahamdubya 06:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

it also contains stuff that i havnt read in the actual book, as if people are just guessingGashmak 12:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Please do not add anything to the Geopolitics section of the article. It's too long already, and we've been trying to weed it out further. Additions to it merely complicate that process. Thank you all for your cooperation. --Grahamdubya 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Russia singled out in doing so poorly?
God I hate when Russia turns out to be the bad guy or is the one that does poorly. What do they mean they didn't have the equipment or whatever that resulted in them doing so poorly?

-G


 * Russia is not singled out in doing poorly. It is expclicitly stated that China was not only the last country to be secured, but also had the highest casualty rate amongst it's armed forces.

Because the Russian military IS very poor. It has very low morale, and all its equipment needs an overhaul.

also russa was fighting a much more compley battle with europ to the west and china to the southBoatman666 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Their referring to the aftermath of the Cold War, where they had a huge stockpile of weapons.GreatRedShark

It's because most authors don't relies what countries are really like. For Example,Ireland should be mentioned more so as if this were a true crises since the country is the 3rd richest in the world and 2nd richest in Europe and is a Safe Island nation it would become much much more powerful,Never mind Cuba.The Rep Of Ireland has the world second best Special Ops for Pete's sake.But as like Russia it wont happen as the countries are viewed like that.Mikel-Fikel 82

I doubt what you say about Ireland is true, it has little or no military, it has no near the second best special ops, it would in all likelyhood be entirely dependant on the UK for its defense, and unlike cuba which has an insular economy because of years of sanctions, Ireland has a very open economy entirely dependant on international trade particularly with the UK, and economic support from the EU, in fact the most industrialised part of the island is the north, however this being said Ireland in could well become the breadbasket of europe. if it wasn't for the help of the UK in all likelyhood Ireland would suffer the same fate as Iceland, it appears in the fictional world the Irish learned to put there hatred of the British behind them perhaps you could learn from there example Sherzo 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actualy,There are special forces competions held every year and Ireland special ops have com second to India and china's for the past several years.Do not make statments which you cannot talk about.I do not know how you see Ireland but I know you know notting about it.Also what hatred of Britain.I dont know how you are a admin as you are basing your self of false facts,Ireland dose not hate Britain.Mikel-Fikel 82

First i am not nor have i ever been an Admin. Second you make alot of assertions about my lack of knowledge, which you apparantly base on?? however what i know personally is irrelevant this encyclopedia is based on reliable and verifiable sources. as for special forces, well i don't of this "competition" but it strikes me most countries would regard as a waste of and security risk. the countries with the best special forces tend to be the ones that were involved in the cold war (ireland was neutral) or have constant usage, as such Nato and most expects tend to consider the British particularly the Special Air Service who are regard as the finest in the world and after who most Special forces are modeled. followed by the Israelis, particularly Sayeret Matkal, The Russians, Particularly want we in the west call the Spetnaz, the US, particularly Delta Force, and then Germany particularly the KSK with many of the former cold war combatants following behind. i only once saw the Irish listed i a top ten, by British writer Chris Ryan, he placed them at 7th i believe as they had work closely with the British in anti terrorism during the troubles. Sherzo 10:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You see that is a common view but is mistaken.For instance most people considered the American Army to be the best in the world but in fact they are the worst trained din NATO.Unlike msot special force the Irish Army Rangers do not spew out stories of what they do.For instance,In Africa((I forget the name but When I can I will happily pass the article onto you))a large bunker in which the rebels inside constantly raped and beat their hostages.The Rangers,stormed the bunker and rescued all the hostages and took down all the rebels with out a signal death or bullet fire.A 2nd cousin of mine that I recently met at a wedding who is a high ranking US marine.I was talking to him and I mentioned the Rangers and he said they are not well known but they are a one of the best special ops in the world.Also Ireland would spend money on them and it's military as we may be neutral but are a major contribution to the Peace Force.Mikel-Fikel 82

The US army is rated the best in the world, thats because both its size, logistics and technology all count towards it, perhaps if you were more than an Armchair General you might know that, The Nato allies do place greater emphasis on training particular the British this is probably why there special forces are considered the best in the world. well you seem to spewing out quite a few, such as the bizarre concept of a special forces world cup, which i'm sure is fun for all the family to watch. But i am so glad the girlfriend of your second cousins twice removed best friend's brother is keeping you so well informed on the relative quality of special ops perhaps he just said to get the hell away from your obessive jingoism? Finally please actually try researching before you make a comment since you are no making yourself look foolish, the Irish military is very small, which is understandable since they have no enemies, and not very well funded, the EU recently brought it some new ships, but don't let your extreme anglophobia blinker you, you may hate the British but they are exceptionally good soldiers, I hate the Yankees but i can't deny they have a good team. please read WP:NPOV Sherzo 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG,Firstly stop saying I hate the British,I don't.Secondly I did not say a Special Force World Cup.It is a tournament which is highly looked on.Thirdly insulting a person the wiki is against the terms.So I would suggest you get rid of half of what you comment said or I will report you.

And last but not least half of what you say is utter and total bull shit.Sure the USA's Army is big and technically advanced but they are one of the worst trained in NATO.

Also it seems you hate the Irish.What is your problem,You keep on claiming that Irish people hate Britain,You say stuff which isn't true about Ireland.Your Miss are a racist.You insist on keeping Ireland apart of Greta Britain on the wiki when it is not.The Royal family would stay in Northern Ireland,Hell they may even stay in the Republic but it is logical that the Pope would stay in the Republic for safety reasons.Because pf the idiotic fighting in the North Between extremist Catholics and Protestants.Mikel-Fikel 82

I don't claim the Irish hate britain its quite clear you hate the British, and as usual you obviously are misinformed since you don't even know the geography of Ireland Armagh is in the North. but don't let reality get in the way of your myopic jingoism. Sherzo 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Russia is not "singled out" for doing poorly in this article; the book itself points out that Russia was hard-hit by the war (although China was the worst-hit of all). Russia has good special forces and other stuff; so did the United States, and Britain.  But all of them ended up getting hammered by the living dead; why?  Brooks' narrative points out that the US's special forces "Alpha Teams" did *really* well against the undead in the first year of the zombie outbreak, during the "Great Denial"; the problem was, special forces units were simply outnumbered.  It was impossible for the "Alpha Teams" to defeat the zombies; they were a stop-gap measure to try to at least keep the zombies' numbers in check before the regular US army could be mobilized to full-scale war levels.  It wasn't because everyone was in denial; the US suffered, but was still able to form a defensive line at the Rocky Mountains (I'm not sure if Brooks was saying that the US fared particularly "bad" or "good" compared to other countries, but it does seem to have done "better" than China and Russia did.  I think he actually says Britain handled the situation better because they had castles and their "armored motorway" tactic...but then again, compared to all of these other countries the average US citizen has more access to guns and such and he does state that there were more pockets of survivors in the US than any other country, but I digress...) the point is that the *regular* Russian army was suffering from budget problems and such, and after the zombies spread so fast that the zombies could overwhelm through numbers they had a hard time of it.  One of the main Russian strategies in the Cold War was superior armor; tank dominance.  Admittedly, the Soviets had hands-down the better tank corps; NATO would have probably lost a conventional war against Soviet tank forces.  Of course, the whole point was that war against the Soviet Union would be nuclear, not conventional, so all of that investment in tanks wasn't really worth it.  Well, this is all academic speculation.  The point is, if we learned anything from the Battle of Yonkers, its that tanks are almost useless against zombies; they just don't proportionately do enough damage against them.  The US army actually stops using tanks against zombies altogether, doesn't actually make new tanks at all; they just retrofit a few for urban combat for taking back the cities from Rebels and such.  So the Russian army had a pretty good tank corps and special forces, but what the Undead were defeated by in the US was massive amounts of well-equipped standard infantry.  The Russian economy already wasn't doing good, and in the book they were simply left to fight the zombies with inadequate weapons.  Of course, just like Napoleon and Hitler, the Russian winter turned out to be Russia's biggest weapon as that ended up freezing most of the zombies; it helps to have most of the country above the frost line.  OF COURSE, the other problem is that Russia had to face the hoardes from China and India (and Europe too) who just came in hoardes overland.  The US and Britain at least had the advantage of oceans:  of the 200 million zombies in the continental US, an estimated 25 million were refugees from Latin America that reanimated on their way north.  Considering, say, having the entire population of zombified China next door, that's not really that many zombies from other countries in the US.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ireland
Id like to ask people to not put Ireland under the catagory of the United Kingdom as the Republic Of Ireland is an independant Country and is not apart of the British Isles,The Common wealth or Great Britain.The UK/Great Britain only comprmises of Wales,Scotland,England and Northern Ireland..

it is part of the British Isles its not a part of the UK Sherzo 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Term British Isles is very controversial,Irish politics denounce this term as it claims the Republic of Ireland is British. MikelFikel82 23:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

wel Mikel id say its a widely held geographic term-as much as the republic might dislike it-they are where they are-and the term British isles...arguably its permissible because Britain(the country) is the largest more powerful state on the continent-int he same way that north America is called America-if the USA were not as powerful as it is, and maybe Canada or Meico were the dominant power int he region, possibly north America woluld be called something different bythe world-who knows

luckily geography isn't politics, Sherzo 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol-Sherzo-NEVER go into politics-i could refer to the Anglo Irish issue of Ulster, the Indian Pakistan relationship wwich has frequently involved war, in Kashmir, the Israeli Palestinian issue, the war between Ethiolpia and Eritrea, the war between Indonesia and East Timor, the issue of divided Germany and Korea, the issue of Germanys cold war 1ost politik1-establishing borders with Poland,t he ongoing arguament between China and Taiwan, China and Japan, Britain and Argentina, Britain Spain, the two cypriot camps....tell me when to stop

how is that relevant? its a geographical name, these isn't the appriopriate place to debate international relations. and sign your comments Sherzo 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ireland is geographically a part of the British isles-that is comnn geographical knowledge-the British isles refers to the isle of Great Britain(the largest one, comprising England Scotland and Wales, the island of Ireland, divided between the Republic and British Ulster, and all the plethora of little coastal islands. The UK has soveriegnty over the north of Irleand, becaue the majority of the population wish it so-futhermore, its common sense to group them together in this books case seeing as the two countries appear to, and would logically, co operate in the event of such an outbreak

BTW, it says on the article that Britain becomes THE major oil producer-this is not correct-no where in the book does it say that Britain became the major oil producer-it merely says that oil located under windsor castle,which was not previously extracted due to being relatively cost inefficient due to the effort required to get it, set agaisnt the profit expected, was extracted by the army. It would be an adequatesupply for one complex-ie thecastle, but not for commercial use-other than that, Britain and oil are not mentioned. Ive ammended that section accordingly

actually it say it got Britain on the move, so its enough to supply at least the entire nation, and given how every other Oil producing regions is out of service, it also plays the juxaposition that Brooks builds throughout the book, native tribal group survive better than industrialised nations, poor countries become rich, and a major post industrial nation that has less than 1 percent of its economy in the primary sector becomes a major a primary producer Sherzo 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

its been since modified since that comment was posted

Could people please stop putting Ireland in with Great Britain as it is put as if the Republic of Ireland is appart of it when it is not.Mikel-Fikel

it simple says Britain and Ireland appear to have integrated their response Sherzo 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the orignal person to say they integrated their response a good while ago as It also says the pope went to Ireland and the British Royal family.Ireland shouldnt not be put under Great Britain as a country.

I several i doubt that since it was added long before you started pushing your POV on this particular article, and it pointless to repeat the sentence, it a sign perhaps of your obessive anglophobia that you can't even may the thought of your beloved Ireland to mentioned in the same Breath as the British Sherzo 04:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Britain's North Sea oil became one of the world's few primary oil-producing regions left because the Middle-east got almost completely wiped out. Iran for example got nuked by Pakistan, and the fallout over the whole region is bad, not to mention they were getting millions of zombies pouring in from India to further west.  On top of this, the Saudi royal family set their oil fields on fire (who knows why) and the general implication is that the oil production of the Middle-east got totally trashed.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

seriously its a book about a zombie apocalypse does it matter if it gets facts wrong? for all you know Ireland was unified to prior to or during the events, or that Britain and Ireland entered a new political union at some point in the book's FICTIONAL history Foxley of Grim 09:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Yonkers Merge
I do not believe that the article Battle of Yonkers needs to be merged with this. There is an excellent amount of detail there, which is rather too much to put into the main article. Objections? Reactions? --Grahamdubya 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep It looks a bit too developed for a merge at this point, yes. Normalphil 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if no one else supports a move in a week's time (22 February), I'm going to pull the merge notices from the pages. Grahamdubya 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Leave it as it is, and maybe one a page for the battle of Hope as well?

Tobias1 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge I'd say it's been developed to an unnecessary degree, and the battle doesn't merit this much depth or its own entry. I support a merger. AndrewXyz 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The general consensus seems to be leave it as is; it has now been a week, and I am concordantly removing the merge notice from both the Battle of Yonkers and World War Z. Grahamdubya 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge I support a merge, it was a pivotal battle but it is far overdeveloped and overcomplicated. the information would be better if filed into more appropriate areasBoatman666 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Don't merge - The article is well fleshed out; and countless other fictional battles have Wiki pages.  Goldenboy | talk |  contribs  13:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge I recommend this be merged into its own section or one on set piece battles from the book, on the books main page 82.26.96.127 04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge This article does not meet the standards of notability. Grouchy Chris 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep The World War Z article is already getting over-long, and there is too much information on this page to really support a merge. Grahamdubya 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep It should stay on its own, its too long to merge into this article without losing most of it. GreatRedShark 17:15 April 09, 2007 (EST)

Merge While the "Battle of Yonkers" is a well written article, it is not noteworthy on its own. I'm sympathetic to the argument that many other fictional battles have articles on wikipedia; however many of them are in alternate universes which span multiple works in multiple media (like in the Star Wars or Star Trek Universes). This battle is specific to one book (two if it's mentioned in the "Survival Guide"), and thus belongs on that book's article. --Cjs56 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge or Fork into one on the war of WWZ Sherzo 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would 'Forking' be a new article on all the battles of the war? I might start writing that... Grahamdubya 06:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * to fork means to create new sub articles to avoid main articles becoming overly long Sherzo 12:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge The Battle of Yonkers is only meaningful (And why was this singled out? It is important, but there are far more important parts) with relation to the book. The Battle of Yonkers needs to be integrated into the main article, and the whole article re-worked. This is getting too long. 140.232.201.66 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

keep noooo! this is a well developed article! 66.31.247.66 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep World War Z is too long already and Battle of Yonkers is a well written article that would do better on its own.--AirLiner 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

separate articles for the major battles ana the Characters would be a effecive way of shortening the article without sacraficeing quality.Boatman666 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the characters section into its own article, Characters in World War Z. --Grahamdubya 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

seems like a very weak keep is the consensus Sherzo 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened between May and now that deleted the entire article? It isn't even 'merged' into this article -- it only exists as a reference. Piepants 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Piepants

Phalanx Merge
I think the Phalanx article needs to be merged with the greater WWZ, as is, it stands out uselessly as it's own separate article. 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)~

I'm not really sure why there is a complete seperate article for the Phalanx vaccine, nor would I want to add such a long section into this article. Max Overload 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, it only really needs one paragraph. --McGeddon 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * support, it was a relatively minor thing in the book more than a paragraph is excessive for a vaccene that didn't even workBoatman666 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * support, doesn't need its own article. --JMurphy 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, for reasons above --Cjs56 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing objections
Hello - as a fan of the book, I find it highly inappropriate that half of the article is dedicated to right wing objections to some of the content; I move that those portions be stricken from the article.

Striking them from the article completely isn't necessary. What the article really needs is more work done (synopsis, reviews, etc). When it has been fleshed out some more the objections won't dominate the article so much. For now they should be left in on the assumption that the article will be filled in. Levid37 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't hurt to have a source; for instance, a link to an online reviewer or blog which takes offense at the book's Bush-bashing (which is relatively minor, in my opinion). We so often find that when someone writes "some people" in a Wikipedia article, they're referring to themselves.  Teflon Don 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gone. I meant to do it before, but the database was locked and I'd forgotten about it since. EVula 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gone? Why? I put it there so other people like myself won't have the same awful experience I had. For others who aren't bothered by things like blaming zombie outbreaks on Bush, they will be unaffected by my comments. Why censor them?


 * Why? Because your personal feelings are irrelevant and counts as original research, which Wikipedia has fairly explicit rules against. EVula 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal feelings? You mean like, "World War Z is reminiscent of Soren Narnia's Song of the Living Dead (2003)"?

I accurately described the passages from the book that clearly lay blame for the zombie outbreak at the feet of the Bush administration. That is fact, not opinion, and not a feeling. It's also just as relevent as what other books World War Z reminds you of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visvivalaw (talk • contribs)


 * I didn't write the bit about Song of the Living Dead, so please don't attribute it to me. I removed it, although not because it was POV-pushing. I removed it because the book has no Wikipedia article, and is therefore non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for forcing me to take a stronger look at that.


 * Also, "Some readers felt" is a blatantly unsourced claim. You've failed to address any of my complaints with your POV-pushing copy; additional insertions will be reverted as vandalism. EVula 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...you're pretty much inserting your own POV with weasel words. "Some readers"? Some readers might consider the book to be a parable about Kevin Federline...that doesn't make it factual.--CyberGhostface 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No need for threats, EVula. I'm not a vandal. I was trying to add what I thought was important information but after reading through some of the rules you and CyberGhostface mentioned I can see your points.

So to be clear, if I could cite a source -- an article somewhere that related the same information I was trying to insert -- then I'd be okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visvivalaw (talk • contribs)


 * Pretty much, yeah, though it would need to be broken out from the general information section (and would need to be something more than just somebody's blog saying "omg Bush sux in Wordl War Z lol"); "Critical reaction" would be an excellent name for a section like that. (also, I didn't mean for it to come out as a threat, merely a statement)


 * Also, as an aside, if you can find a blog post that says that exact thing, that'd be absolutely hilarious. :-) EVula 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The outbreak is not blamed on Bush, in fact the outbreak is not really blamed on anyone but China. It is stated in the book that America is an all or nothing society, that wants the "big win" to show that there victory was utterly undisputed and "completely devastating". It was slow to rouse for another large military conflict, much like it was after Vietnam. So, in reality, it is the general civilian population that is blamed for not wanting to answer the call to arms.Hatedthirdborn 04:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Hatedthirdborn

Bush is not president when the outbreak occurs, so it could not be his fault. The inability to muster "wartime spirit" and encourage people to take the zombie outbreak seriously, however, is blamed on American society's reactionary sentiments toward a prior presidential administration's mismanagement of a different war. So, it seems like Bush (though he is never explicitly named by Brooks) could be blamed for Americans not wanting to treat the undead as a formidable military opponent they need to rally together to defeat...but he could not be blamed for the outbreak itself.

Zombie Dehydration
I read the book this past week, but not the Survival Handbook, and have a question that remains unresolved in my mind. I don't know if it belongs in the primary article or not, so post it here:

Why don't the zombies get dehydrated? Yes, I realize that some suspension of disbelief is necessary whenever one speaks of zombies, and I'm certainly willing to meet you halfway. George Romero's zombies never hung around nearly as long as the Z's, and the 28 Days Later 'zombies' were still essentially alive... I'm willing to accept some postdeath activities on the part of our deceased friends, but feel that they should(to the greatest degree possible) comport themselves according to the rules of physics - a Zomboid in the desert is going to get dried up!71.42.82.201 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The actual science of the zombies is covered in fairly explicit detail in the survival guide. I can't remember the exact rationale, but I do know that deserts were the most conducive for zombies simply because the rate of decay was much, much lower in such an arid environment (as opposed to jungles, where the humidity sped up the decomposition process). EVula 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually i think you'll find the science in both books was pretty sketchy, there was no reason given for the zombies not dehydrating, just as there was no reason given for a number of inexplicable phenomena. for example, it was clearly stated that zombies have no sense of feeling and that a zombie with no nose, ear canals, tongue or eyes (meaning that they lacked all senses) would still try to bite at a human close by. On the dehydrating point again, the only specific comment made about it that i can remember was that zombies do not blink, possibly because they do not have the fluids to be constantly lubricating the eye.


 * For your complaints on the senses, he wrote in the ZSG (which this was based off of) that it was a known mystery of zombies already, that even with their five normal senses compromised (like eyes rotting out) they could still hunt after a nearby human. He didn't provide an explanation, just that it was one of those mysteries in it all. I think it's a fairly minor one compared to the mystery of how the virus makes the brain into a source of perpetual energy without being fed any kind of fuel, but it's necessary for the primary conceit of zombies to work, so I just accept it and move on. Nerrin 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Zombie Survival Guide said something about since zombies organs and blood no longer function, the pretty much don't need anything. I'm not an expert on human biology, but isn't water really only needed for blood and sweat? If zombies have neither, why do they need water.

Actually, water is needed for nearly all functions of the body, as your brain is seventy-five percent water.

In Survival guide, it makes it clear to the reader that "scientists" are largely uncertain about many, many things conerning "Why?"s. Its a way for the book to combat the "Why"s, since all you have to say is "no one knows yet". So basically...anything not described in the book(s) is assumed to be not understood by modern science.

The zombies violate almost every single law of nature. Why should they stop at dehydration?--71.252.243.19 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For that matter, as the girl in the Canadian wilderness park openly laments: why the heck don't zombies' cells physically rupture when they are frozen?  Normal cells "pop" when water freezes to ice inside of them.  This is why cryogenically freezing someone is for the moment impossible.  Zombies should be *killed* be freezing them.  Even characters in the book say that according to all scientific logic, zombies should be destroyed by freezing.  But they don't.  It's just one of the mysteries of the zombie plague.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)