Talk:Vampire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vampire article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Vampire is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Vampire has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result November 4, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted August 22, 2005 Featured article review Demoted July 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Former featured article, current good article

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	To-do list for Vampire:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
At least three times as many inline citations from reliable sources (currently 25), probably book sources as there aren't many non-fiction vampire sources on the internet. expansion of the non-western vampire myths, such as ancient Babylon. a copyedit to get the article flowing once all the references are in place.
Priority 1 (top)

This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contents 1 folklore or fact 2 Where Did It Start? 3 Cryptozoology info box 4 Etymology II 5 Vampirism 6 Newby Needs Help 7 How to fight vampires 8 Vampires Are Haemaores. I have a perfectly logical, and scientific explanation for their existence today. 9 Odd Secondary Definition of Vampirism

[edit] folklore or fact

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

[edit] Where Did It Start?

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

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

[edit] Cryptozoology info box

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

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

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

[edit] Etymology II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyhow good luck to everyone. I have done my best

SuzieT 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Vampirism

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

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

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

[edit] Newby Needs Help

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] How to fight vampires

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave them alone, they wish you no harm. The are real, they are haemavorous Sufferers of Pophyria. I hate the human race, It is generally ignorant of most things and it's natural reaction to anything it doesn't understand is "Oi! what the hell is that!?!? Dunno..... LET'S KILL IT!!!!" ~Fraz~

[edit] Vampires Are Haemaores. I have a perfectly logical, and scientific explanation for their existence today.

Fear not the vampires, they are simply genetically modified human beings. They are Haemavorous sufferers of a blood disorder called Porphyria. it's a lack of haemoglobin in the red blood cells basically. And many symptoms and side-effects are EXTREMELY SIMILAR to what we know as vampirism. for example the extenesive growth of the teeth, and the severe reaction to Sunlight. So through-out this post I'll be refering to Porphryia as vampirism.

Vampirism is basically no more than a rare virus transmitted genetically and occasionally by Bodily fluids of the "vampire", e.g. Blood, Saliva.

The correct term is Homo Wampyrus. There are 4 variations of Homo Wampyrus. the first is Draco, the most common and classic case of vampirism. Draco Wampyrus is the result of any of the following Vampire types breeding with any of the 3 types which is not their own type. Homo Wampyrus is the only type with extra muscles in their upper jaw bones, which enable them to extend their canines.

2nd is Nosferatu Wampryrus. The "rat" vampire, The middle two incisors can grow into long pointy triangular shapes. Since the Nosferatu virus is more aggressive than the other types, the immune system is also more aware of it, and more determined to destroy it. Thus, with World war 3 of Virus VS Immunity happening inside the individual, Their physical appearance becomes deformed, Causing their heads to be bald and dome shaped. There fingers, long, thin, and bony (often with an extra Joint). And there spinal columns become twisted or bent, causing the vampire to Hunch. In some extreme cases, The spine can even begin to look like a U shape as it curls over. Because of these awful deformities, Nosferatu are the most Secretive, and Shy vampires. They fear going to blood banks to obtain precious Haem, so unfortunately, choose unsuspecting sleepers for their Haem supply.

3rd is Sauria Wampyrus. The "reptile" vampire, although the only resemblance to reptiles is the dental anatomy. Over time, The Teeth split in half (similar to the way a cell divides) the teeth are half the size of a normal human, and twice as many! the teeth are pointed like triangles as well. Saurian vampires are by far the most sociable and crave both human and other vampire contact. They rarely bite necks or anywhere else. They rely on Blood donations from friends. Close friends may know about their condition, but most of there many acquaintances will never know, since if they keep their mouths shut, or wear dentures, they can pass as humans. Since Vampires have long life (scientifically explained later) Saurian vampires, have to watch their friends and family die before them, (They'll outlive generations of acquaintances)and often as a result they become depressed and commit suicide.

4th and final, Chiroptera Wampyrus. The "bat" vampire, so-called because of their Destinct dental resemblance to bats. very few teeth on the upper jaw, 2 middle (and only) incisors slightly raised, and short trinagular shape. 2 canines not particularly "fang-like", and no molars. A few more teeth on the lower jaw. These vampires (after 12 hours of eating, preparing, and exercising) are known to "shape-shift into large Bat-like creatures, It's a bit like Giving birth I would imagine (as a pain comparrison) with the help of Melanin, they change their skin colour to a dark, Brown or Black. The cranium flattens slightly, the nose becomes slightly upturned, Ears pointy, Jaw bone Extends forward, and Gradually Epidermal cells Multiply at a rapid rate to create thin layers of skin between the torso and the arms, and between the fingers. This however does not happen in a puff of smoke, it takes 12 painful and Physically draining hours to complete the tranfromation. Only aged and experiences vampires are capable of this. The can't actually fly, more like Hanglide. not many vampires choose to do this, since apart from the individuality, and Flying, it isn't worth the agony. Also, Chiroptera vampires are the most sensitive to sunlight. Just a few minutes of ultra violet rays can badly blister them, after about 10 minutes, the skin turns black and the vampire is in immense pain.

Now, longevity. Vampires are not immortal. That would defy the law of physics. They just live a heck of lot longer than us!!!!! Centuries, even a thousand or more, before aging finally happens. I shall explain. In our bodies, as cells divide containing our DNA, containing chromosomes, each time a cell divides the telomere at the ends eukaryotic chromosome is lost or worn away. After about 50 divisions the telomere is completely gone. When the telomere is gone alltogether, we age. But the reason why kids look young and Wrinkle-free, is because of a hormone present in all humans, but active only in kids, and in vampires of all ages. The hormone is telomerase. It repairs the worn away telomeres preventing aging. however when we are in our teen years We stop producing teomerase. And slowly, Every last telomere in our body will die, and when that happens, so will we. (don't worry, we have a lot of telomeres!) but, vampires never stop producing telomerase, untill maybe many centuries, or even thousands of years. Yes, this means they continue to be good-looking!

Garlic, not exactly a "repellent" but more an allergy associated with the Homo Wampyrus Gene. The allergy to Allium. So they are allergic to leeks and onions as well. so if you really are scared of vampires even though they are harmless, carry a leek with you if there's no garlic. The actual effect is that the bronchi becomes inflamed, the throat and larynx are constricted and oxygen is unable to pass through the airways. If a quantity is consumes or oil of garlic is injected, it can result in Death by asphyxiation. usual signs of this appear, bloodshot eyes, even paler face, blue lips.

I could say more in greater detail, but am not patient enough. Thank you for reading this far, Please reply with your opinions, prove me wrong! Criticize me! Compliment me. Anything. And don't say "they are not real, I have never seen a vampire" well, no, you have never seen your typical view of a vampire, you have probably seen a vampire who you thought was normal human, simply walking past you..... they aren't freaks in capes you know. they do have fashion sense, and decent haircuts! and wear factor 40 sunblock. Probably have jobs as bouncers, or night watchmen.

Also, I'd like to say, that I am writing a theory which I will publish soon on TS2.com. It is an upgraded version of my old vampirism theory in light of new information. This is just a taster of it. And as part of my extensive research I am currently looking for any Genuine homo Wampyrus to tell me a little bit about themselves, and how you cope with members of the human race who do not understand or appreciate you. I do, I understand, and respect you. And I cannot express how grateful I would be if you came forward and gave your opinions. If you are a member of TS2.com, you can sign my guest book, I am FrazPlayer3. It will be 100% confidential. And together we may be able to change the stereotypical viewpoint of many members of the human race. or you can contact me here.

Thank you. ~Fraz~

Please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Secondly, we can't put your theory on here because Wikipedia has a policy against original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Finally, this Poryphria=vampirism theory (which is already covered in the article has been debunked pretty throughly (see: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990507.html), and people who genuinely suffer from poryphria were outraged at the stigma that this pseudo-scientific claptrap put upon them. Poryphria is not contagious, it cannot be transmitted through bodily fluids, and your claims to the contrary spread ignorance about this terrible disease. Don't poryphria victims have enough to deal with without you slandering them? Get a life. Asarelah 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the comment in the How to fight vampires section above is entirely unrelated to what was actually being discussed. Second, this theory of yours is already here. It is also already mentioned (see the next section as well) that porphyria is closer to the modern-day depiction of vampires than the original appearance when the scares first started. Good luck. -Bbik 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell a "tidle" is and I don't care either!I do, and say what I want! and none of you can stop me! Now if you want to reject this theory fine, but you don't have to critisise me! Get a life? you sure you weren't talking to a mirror when you said that? I am documenting this as part of my "fieldwork" for my theory. and Don't say I can't cos of copyright! I wrote the damn thing! I said Haemavorous Porphyiria sufferers not all suffers! just the rare few who have it to the extreme of so called Vampirism! Do most porphyria sufferers drink blood of others? no! only haemavorous ones! and thats what i said! not slandering the regular average everyday porphria sufferer. I distinctly said Haemavorous! and if a porphria sufferer doesn't class themselves as haemavorous, or drink blood, I ain't slandering 'em! and as for claptrap, do you really want me to show you the pictures I have of them? the pictures which show the cruelty of human kind upon them? the pictures of murdered tortured haemavores? the picture of a dismembered haemavore's head lying in a pool of blood after being forced into the burning sunlight by the Humankind? Do you really?!?! Do i have to prove it to you to that extent?!?! You are the sad one! you should get the life! ~Fraz~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.18.183 (talk • contribs) 12:54, March 31, 2007 (UTC).

No personal attacks. I don't care who it was directed at, don't do it. Oh, and copyright is not the same thing as original research. -Bbik 18:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, regardless of whether or not your theory actually holds any water, this is not the place for it. Wikipedia, as I mentioned before has policy against original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research This is not the place to put original research, nor is this the place to conduct fieldwork. This is talk page for improving an article about vampires. It is not a forum about vampires. I also apologize for being so harsh with you. I happen to know a person with poryphria, hence the poryphria=vampirism thing is a bit of a sore point for me. I hope you'll forgive my anger.Asarelah 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Secondary Definition of Vampirism

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

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