![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a footnotes that reads: "Vampires, in the modern sense, were first "invented" by Lord Byron in the early 19th century. Newburgh and Maps descriptions arguably have some modern "vampiric" characteristics."
What are you basing this on? What do you mean "modern"? There is LOTS of vampire folklore that predates the early 19th century and that is very similar to modern fictional representations. It seems like the footnote is making artificial distinctions here that don't hold up. DreamGuy 02:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Stbalbach: In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I agree that "undead" or "souls of the dead" are not ideal, but if the use of the former is considered anachronistic, it is plainly inconsistent with this view to have retained the latter in the previous version.
More generally, the overall presentation the previous was sub-standard in that it did not confirm to the standard and basic WP format of "[subject matter] is [accurate, concise and objective description of subject matter]". And characterising revenants as a type of anomalous phenomenon is obviously a desirable improvement when the previous provided no such context.
Whatever problem exists with the use of "anachronistic" terms, absolute reversions which wipe everything without regard for constructive improvements - and give an offhand edit summary - are amongst the most disagreeable types of wiki-conduct. A constructive attempt to replace physical plane A would be welcome, bearing in mind that I have already worked up the underlying article to make it more relevant and useful, that physical plane B can be discounted as a separate concept, and that issues around the suitability of this link were referenced in my first edit summary. 203.198.237.30 05:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: this comment: "previous was in sub-standard WP format & had easter egg link, inter alia" - no idea what that means. -- Stbalbach 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
203.198.237.30 05:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any other medieval accounts but those from England? Newburgh and Map's stories seem quite isolated, regarding their characteristics (that's why vampire enthusiasts regard them as "unique" descriptions of vampirism, without parallel in France and Germany). If it's a purely English 12th century phenomenon, that should be mentioned, and perhaps the whole article should be re-named. -- 194.145.161.227 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
A further reversion without constructive changes will result in this template:
![]() | This article may need clearer distinction between fact and fiction. |
Tuoreco 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss before renaming. Revenant's were not "mythological" in the proper sense and such terminology is confusing. Stbalbach 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with the statement, "Fear of the walking dead is older than the oldest literature." Unless there is some sort of non-literary documentation, then there is surely no basis to make this claim. (It is of course likely that anything documented by literature existed at least slightly before the documentations, but if this statement is meant only in that sense then it hardly needs stating.)
Further, the citation of the Ishtar quote seems of questionable relevance to me. That there was a myth where a goddess threatened to return the dead to the land of the living, hardly equates to there having been a belief or fear of the dead visiting the living on other occasions. This is like using the myth of Prometheus to support an assertion that the ancient Greeks had a fear of having their livers eaten by eagles.
This might belong in some more general article about historical conceptions of the dead, but it is a stretch to bring into this article about Revenants.-- Ericjs ( talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This caught my eye as well. It seems illogical to claim that such a fear pre-exists the literature, unless you can give non-literary evidence to support the claim. As it is, it comes across as something being said to be impressive. R0nin Two ( talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(The blanked section)
"The threat
I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living.
I shall make the dead outnumber the living.
is repeated by Ishtar twice in the Akkadian literature [1] and also by her Underworld sister, Ereshkigal. [2]"
"I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living". Wikipedia's definition, beginning the article, is "A revenant is a visible ghost or animated corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living." QED. Blanking sourced text does not move the encyclopedia forward. Savvy readers of Wikipedia always read the related Talkpage. -- Wetman ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no Latin grammar reference within reach, but I think the Latin word would be reveniens not revenans (it's not an a-stem verb). The French equivalent is revenant, though. — Tamfang ( talk) 00:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to account for an entire class of revenants that really have nothing to do with terrorizing the living. At least in early Irish literature, the revenant has returned from the dead, or more usually lived an exceedingly long life, in order to fill in the gaps of history before writing. Some examples that come immediately to mind are the Acallam na Senórach and the Recovery of the Táin Bó Cuailnge. Fintan mac Bochra is a revenant who returns time and again in various guises in order to pass along the tales found in the Lebor Gabála (Book of Invasions), which detail the earliest settlements of Ireland from the time of the flood.
Some references include: 1. Emma Nic Cárthaigh, “Surviving the Flood: Revenants and Antediluvian Lore in Medieval Irish Texts,” in Transmission and Transformation in the Middle Ages : Texts and Contexts, ed. Kathy Cawsey and Jason Harris (Dublin: Four Courts, 2007), 40–64.
2. Hill, Eleanor, "The Hawk of Achill or the Legend of the Oldest Animals," Folklore, 43 (1932), 386.
3. R.A. Stewart MacAllister, ed., Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book Of The Taking Of Ireland, 6 vols. (Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland for the Irish Texts Society, 1956).
4. Ann Dooley and Harry Roe, eds., Tales of the Elders of Ireland (Acallam Na Senorach) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
5. Thomas Kinsella, tran., The Táin: From the Irish Epic Táin Bó Cúailnge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).
I'm working on a thesis on early Irish literary history at the moment, but if someone else would like to take this up, I'd be happy to help where I can. If not I can work on it when I have more time. Also, this is my first post here, so please pardon if I haven't done it right :)
Hystorically ( talk) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Hystorically
Rice uses the term to refer to vampires who were buried and, unable to feed, became brain-damaged vampires in contrast to the variety that could speak. Should this be discussed in the article?-- 64.134.237.32 ( talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A significant part of the article depends upon a single source, "Medieval Vampire Stories In England". That source is being used to describe what medievalists as a whole supposedly believe. I find no record of any source by that name. "Unearthing Medieval Vampire Stories In England: Fragments From De Nugis Curialium and Historia Rerum Anglicarum" by Jason Nolan, which is listed as "published online". There is no indication that this is someone who is in any way an expert on the topic, and even if he were he could not speak for all medievalists. Another site online says the writing was a "draft for the Third World Conference on Dracula" by Jason Nolan of the University of Toronto, but with no info about his connection to that university. The only Jason Nolan I found that seems like it might be a match is someone who is listed as being "assistant professor in the School of Early Childhood Education" at a different school in Canada but who had some again unspecified role with the University of Toronto. By now it should be more than clear that this essay was written by someone with no qualifications as an expert in any topic related to this encyclopedia article and it was not professionally published. I don't know who originally came up with it to be listed here, but that person didn't even get the title right and knew nothing else about it, or withheld that information to make it sound more reliable than it is.
Looking for suggestions on how to rewrite this section to remove the bad information... if I don't get ideas I'll take a stab at it myself later. DreamGuy ( talk) 03:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@
Ceplm: In
this edit, you reinstated a paragraph that I removed back in October, with the edit summary 'Undid uncommented random act of vandalism by anonymous author
'. Is it possible that you were confused by the article history - as you can see, I am not anonymous, I left a descriptive edit summary when I removed it, and it was certainly not
vandalism. I removed it because I don't believe the paragraph can stand in its current state, for a number of reasons:
If the content had any citations, I would have done a re-write to attribute the descriptions to the relevant sources, improve the formality etc - however, there is no sourcing at all for the whole section. I wasn't happy with creating content based on nothing at all however, and since I don't think the paragraph really adds anything useful, I simply removed it. I'd be keen to know what you think about the existing text, and whether you know of any sources that would allow us to write a more encyclopedic description. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
/dev/null
.
Ceplm (
talk)
15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a corresponding article in Portuguese: Morto-vivo. 189.92.197.74 ( talk) 04:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a footnotes that reads: "Vampires, in the modern sense, were first "invented" by Lord Byron in the early 19th century. Newburgh and Maps descriptions arguably have some modern "vampiric" characteristics."
What are you basing this on? What do you mean "modern"? There is LOTS of vampire folklore that predates the early 19th century and that is very similar to modern fictional representations. It seems like the footnote is making artificial distinctions here that don't hold up. DreamGuy 02:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Stbalbach: In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I agree that "undead" or "souls of the dead" are not ideal, but if the use of the former is considered anachronistic, it is plainly inconsistent with this view to have retained the latter in the previous version.
More generally, the overall presentation the previous was sub-standard in that it did not confirm to the standard and basic WP format of "[subject matter] is [accurate, concise and objective description of subject matter]". And characterising revenants as a type of anomalous phenomenon is obviously a desirable improvement when the previous provided no such context.
Whatever problem exists with the use of "anachronistic" terms, absolute reversions which wipe everything without regard for constructive improvements - and give an offhand edit summary - are amongst the most disagreeable types of wiki-conduct. A constructive attempt to replace physical plane A would be welcome, bearing in mind that I have already worked up the underlying article to make it more relevant and useful, that physical plane B can be discounted as a separate concept, and that issues around the suitability of this link were referenced in my first edit summary. 203.198.237.30 05:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: this comment: "previous was in sub-standard WP format & had easter egg link, inter alia" - no idea what that means. -- Stbalbach 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
203.198.237.30 05:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any other medieval accounts but those from England? Newburgh and Map's stories seem quite isolated, regarding their characteristics (that's why vampire enthusiasts regard them as "unique" descriptions of vampirism, without parallel in France and Germany). If it's a purely English 12th century phenomenon, that should be mentioned, and perhaps the whole article should be re-named. -- 194.145.161.227 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
A further reversion without constructive changes will result in this template:
![]() | This article may need clearer distinction between fact and fiction. |
Tuoreco 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss before renaming. Revenant's were not "mythological" in the proper sense and such terminology is confusing. Stbalbach 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with the statement, "Fear of the walking dead is older than the oldest literature." Unless there is some sort of non-literary documentation, then there is surely no basis to make this claim. (It is of course likely that anything documented by literature existed at least slightly before the documentations, but if this statement is meant only in that sense then it hardly needs stating.)
Further, the citation of the Ishtar quote seems of questionable relevance to me. That there was a myth where a goddess threatened to return the dead to the land of the living, hardly equates to there having been a belief or fear of the dead visiting the living on other occasions. This is like using the myth of Prometheus to support an assertion that the ancient Greeks had a fear of having their livers eaten by eagles.
This might belong in some more general article about historical conceptions of the dead, but it is a stretch to bring into this article about Revenants.-- Ericjs ( talk) 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This caught my eye as well. It seems illogical to claim that such a fear pre-exists the literature, unless you can give non-literary evidence to support the claim. As it is, it comes across as something being said to be impressive. R0nin Two ( talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(The blanked section)
"The threat
I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living.
I shall make the dead outnumber the living.
is repeated by Ishtar twice in the Akkadian literature [1] and also by her Underworld sister, Ereshkigal. [2]"
"I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living". Wikipedia's definition, beginning the article, is "A revenant is a visible ghost or animated corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living." QED. Blanking sourced text does not move the encyclopedia forward. Savvy readers of Wikipedia always read the related Talkpage. -- Wetman ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no Latin grammar reference within reach, but I think the Latin word would be reveniens not revenans (it's not an a-stem verb). The French equivalent is revenant, though. — Tamfang ( talk) 00:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to account for an entire class of revenants that really have nothing to do with terrorizing the living. At least in early Irish literature, the revenant has returned from the dead, or more usually lived an exceedingly long life, in order to fill in the gaps of history before writing. Some examples that come immediately to mind are the Acallam na Senórach and the Recovery of the Táin Bó Cuailnge. Fintan mac Bochra is a revenant who returns time and again in various guises in order to pass along the tales found in the Lebor Gabála (Book of Invasions), which detail the earliest settlements of Ireland from the time of the flood.
Some references include: 1. Emma Nic Cárthaigh, “Surviving the Flood: Revenants and Antediluvian Lore in Medieval Irish Texts,” in Transmission and Transformation in the Middle Ages : Texts and Contexts, ed. Kathy Cawsey and Jason Harris (Dublin: Four Courts, 2007), 40–64.
2. Hill, Eleanor, "The Hawk of Achill or the Legend of the Oldest Animals," Folklore, 43 (1932), 386.
3. R.A. Stewart MacAllister, ed., Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book Of The Taking Of Ireland, 6 vols. (Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland for the Irish Texts Society, 1956).
4. Ann Dooley and Harry Roe, eds., Tales of the Elders of Ireland (Acallam Na Senorach) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
5. Thomas Kinsella, tran., The Táin: From the Irish Epic Táin Bó Cúailnge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).
I'm working on a thesis on early Irish literary history at the moment, but if someone else would like to take this up, I'd be happy to help where I can. If not I can work on it when I have more time. Also, this is my first post here, so please pardon if I haven't done it right :)
Hystorically ( talk) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Hystorically
Rice uses the term to refer to vampires who were buried and, unable to feed, became brain-damaged vampires in contrast to the variety that could speak. Should this be discussed in the article?-- 64.134.237.32 ( talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A significant part of the article depends upon a single source, "Medieval Vampire Stories In England". That source is being used to describe what medievalists as a whole supposedly believe. I find no record of any source by that name. "Unearthing Medieval Vampire Stories In England: Fragments From De Nugis Curialium and Historia Rerum Anglicarum" by Jason Nolan, which is listed as "published online". There is no indication that this is someone who is in any way an expert on the topic, and even if he were he could not speak for all medievalists. Another site online says the writing was a "draft for the Third World Conference on Dracula" by Jason Nolan of the University of Toronto, but with no info about his connection to that university. The only Jason Nolan I found that seems like it might be a match is someone who is listed as being "assistant professor in the School of Early Childhood Education" at a different school in Canada but who had some again unspecified role with the University of Toronto. By now it should be more than clear that this essay was written by someone with no qualifications as an expert in any topic related to this encyclopedia article and it was not professionally published. I don't know who originally came up with it to be listed here, but that person didn't even get the title right and knew nothing else about it, or withheld that information to make it sound more reliable than it is.
Looking for suggestions on how to rewrite this section to remove the bad information... if I don't get ideas I'll take a stab at it myself later. DreamGuy ( talk) 03:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@
Ceplm: In
this edit, you reinstated a paragraph that I removed back in October, with the edit summary 'Undid uncommented random act of vandalism by anonymous author
'. Is it possible that you were confused by the article history - as you can see, I am not anonymous, I left a descriptive edit summary when I removed it, and it was certainly not
vandalism. I removed it because I don't believe the paragraph can stand in its current state, for a number of reasons:
If the content had any citations, I would have done a re-write to attribute the descriptions to the relevant sources, improve the formality etc - however, there is no sourcing at all for the whole section. I wasn't happy with creating content based on nothing at all however, and since I don't think the paragraph really adds anything useful, I simply removed it. I'd be keen to know what you think about the existing text, and whether you know of any sources that would allow us to write a more encyclopedic description. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
/dev/null
.
Ceplm (
talk)
15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a corresponding article in Portuguese: Morto-vivo. 189.92.197.74 ( talk) 04:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)