(This article has been tagged for clean up since November 2005.)
Hello. For some reason, Wiki refuses to let me email you privately... wanted to let you know that "Sanguinarian" is still forwarding to "vampire lifestyle" despite your request. SphynxCatVP 12:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Spelling of Sanguinarian/s/ism et cetera. Please correct all variations.
- Fixed all I could find... one accidental spelling mistake. If there's more, could you please fix them? Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
An excellent job has been done on the sources thus far. However, I keep getting into a circle of sources. I don't believe that one of these sites has actual information that has been originally researched. It’s always information obtained from other website and so on. -- Charles 07:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, all the articles on SphynxCat's site (except those by Sarasvati, but he gave SphynxCat permission to use them himself) were written explicitly for the site and it is the original source of all those articles. I wish there was more available, I'll keep looking. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just a slight correction, the only articles on that site written expressly FOR that site, are ones written by me. Others have been seen elsewhere, and I have been given permission to post a copy to my site. In many cases, some of the original sites (and authors) have disappeared (or moved on to other things) and I end up having the only copy of their article(s). Sphynxcatvp 12:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I keep seeing ‘some believe this, however the minority believe this.’ If there was a central dogma we could all confer to it would be easier to find truth, but the majority of the information is just personal account after personal account. Where is the concrete evidence? Can any proved or tested? Can studies be found?
-- Charles 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Studies can be found (I have seen some before), but not without incredibly significant effort on the part of one researcher (I mean, I spent approximately five hours a week reading information relating to Sanguinarianism, but I have only seen a few scientific papers written on the condition, here and there). The problem is the community is not generally not interested in validating itself, rather with informing those who already have the condition. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's just as frustrating for those of us in the community who want to see more concrete info too. :) Sphynxcatvp 12:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a new lay out would be best. Perhaps a new lay out that contrasts medical/science vs. community belief. I keep thinking about religion; however I think we can do a really great job here.-- Charles 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think an article on it would best be laid out in such a form too, unfortunately categorisation is not one of my strong points! Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Sanguinarianism is a unique case. Personal opinion? Renfield's Syndrome seems a lot, to me at least, like Sanguinarianism.
If someone has a perceived need to consume blood they are suffering from Renfield's Syndrome. This illness was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist named Richard Noll. Since Rendield’s Syndrome is a rather obscure disorder here is an explanation of its origins.
Renfield is a fictional character in the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker. He is an inmate at the lunatic asylum overseen by Dr. Seward, and suffers from a delusional belief system that leads him to eat living creatures in the hope of obtaining their life-force for himself; being confined to the asylum, and aware of the foolishness of taking on a full-sized hospital orderly, this mostly means flies, spiders, and the occasional bird. During the course of the novel, he falls under the influence of Count Dracula - who, as a vampire, does the gaining-life-by-eating-life thing for real - and aids the Count in a number of small ways, most significantly by helping Count Dracula gain entrance into the asylum after Seward and his fellow vampire-hunters make it their base of operations. People tend to assume that Renfield was a more active and long-standing servant of the vampire Count and often depict his zoophagous (the eating of creatures, or more specifically drinking their blood) mania as a result of falling under Dracula's influence, rather than as a pre-existing condition that made him vulnerable to it.
Sufferers of Renfield’s Syndrome need blood to live, However, sanguinarians only need the blood to keep a steady energy flow about them so that they are not weak.
--
Charles 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although I didn't want to go into this much detail in the article, that isn't Renfield's Syndrome. It is written in the same book by Richard Noll, but is seen as the precursor to the real condition.
- "Next to develop is full blown Renfield's syndrome. This can involve murdering or detaining and forcing a person to donate their blood (usually dangerous amounts), stealing medical blood from hospitals or blood banks, or fetishistic sexual bloodplay." [1]
- If you read Noll's book (Vampires, Werewolves and Demons: Twentieth Century Reports in the Psychiatric Literature), you'll see the above is a pretty good description of Renfield's Syndrome, in fact using this definition (similar to the one Richard Noll used) Renfield's Syndrome is so incredibly NOT Sanguinarianism it barely needs a mention.
- However, assuming what I just wrote is wrong, there's still many arguments. If it's a 'perceived' need it isn't Sanguinarianism. Sanguinarism implies a real need, rather than a belief that one needs it. Possibly, a skeptical viewpoint would be that people with Sanguinarism simply had a perceived need, but then it would NOT fit the definition of Sanguinarism. Much in the same way simply having a different prophet sometimes defines what a religion is, having a real need would be what seperated Sanguinarism from Renfield's Syndrome (assuming that was the only issue).
- Also, Renfield's Syndrome is usually associated with the sexual arousal gained from drinking blood to my knowledge. At the least, it is to do with benefits gained. It is instead essential to life in Sanguinarianism. Such a euphoria is seen as a minor aspect of Sanguinarism that is considered not an exclusive reason to drink blood. It is not required for life to someone suffering Renfield's Syndrome under the actual medical condition even though it might be present in it's history. Most Sanguinarians would argue that the very novel you describe is merely a poor fictionalisation of the Sanguinarian state.
- Also, no Sanguinarian would perform autovampyrism because it serves them no benefit, whereas it is seen a a definite precursor to Renfield's Syndrome. Sanguinarians need little more than a teaspoons of blood at most to content them, whereas suffers of Renfield's Syndrome are reported to need whole cups. The book also suggests Renfield's Syndrome is predominately occurant in males. Sanguinarism is at the very least, pretty evenly divided and by some people's opinion generally more of a female condition. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Please address.
- sanguineus, sanguinea, sanguineum
- bloody, bloodstained; blood-red;
- sanguis, sanguinis
- blood; family;
- sanguĭnārĭus , a, um (also late Lat. sanguĭnāris , e, Vulg. Ecclus. 42, 5), adj. [sanguis] ,
- of or belonging to blood, blood-,
Perseus Project Online Latin Lexicon
Currently Listed
- Sanguineus
I think the word is sanguis, but the sources conflict. -- Charles 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I haven't changed that since the original article. Really, I don't think it should exist in the article, but every other similar article has such a thing (where the word is as bizarre). Needs a bit of work regardless. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Personaly, I would defer to official dictionaries for both the spelling and meaning of latin words - as a member of the sanguinarian community, I have seen that sometimes typos happen, or that "bad latin" gets passed around based on incorrect assumptions of latin structure. SphynxCatVP 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Current Source States
Nocturnal Visions (http://www.nocturnalvisions.freeservers.com)
Derived from the Latin *sanguineus* Means *bloodthirsty*, is commonly used to describe vampires who feel they need blood physically
- FYI: The Perseus online dictionary lists "sanguinarius" as the latin word for "bloodthirsty". (I also remember seeing that in my paper latin dictionary which unfortunately is missing.) SphynxCatVP 00:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking for more citations
I am currently in contact with he follow web authors: Charles 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/ (at time of post citation numbers: 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 26, and 27)
- http://www.drinkdeeplyanddream.com/ (at time of post citation numbers 15)
- http://michellebelanger.com/ (at time of post citation numbers 24)
This is an attempt to gather more citations and validate their information.
'Side effects'
- "Vampire Myths vs. Realities"
http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/articles/alibas-myths.html
- A vampire is born a vampire. Any one can drink blood from vampire, but unless the person was already a vampire, they can not and will never become a vampire.
- This Page doesn’t cover anything in side effects, I moved it to “How does one become a Sanguinarian?” and Sup Scripted it. -- Charles 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- A vampire is born a vampire. Any one can drink blood from vampire, but unless the person was already a vampire, they can not and will never become a vampire.
- Thanks. I had about twenty windows and a book open when I added all those sources, thanks for checking them. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is sanguinarian being capitalized in all cases in this article? (i.e. should it be?) RJFJR 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point! I am not English major however; Palestinian, American, European, and Spanish are capitalized. But, vegetarian, veterinarian, barbarian, are all lowercase. In my opinion it should be lowercased. --
cmanser 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I went ahead an fixed all the ones I could see. -- cmanser 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Vampire Lifestyle
I have proposed merging this article with Vampire Lifestyle. There are simultaneous conversations on the talk pages of both articles. Talk:Vampire_lifestyle, Talk:Sanguinarian. Please discuss.
- I just redirected the article to vampire lifestyle because this article has always been nothing more than a WP:FORK file against Wikipedia policies and never did get cleaned up or anything. Best way to improve it was to make it go away. If you think there is anything at all worth salvaging in the old version of the article, please move it to the appropriate article. DreamGuy 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Added to User:Kerowyn/Desk RJFJR 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
format for citations for reference Last, First (1998).
"Title" (PDF). Title of Complete Work. Retrieved 2006-04-19.
(This article has been tagged for clean up since November 2005.)
Hello. For some reason, Wiki refuses to let me email you privately... wanted to let you know that "Sanguinarian" is still forwarding to "vampire lifestyle" despite your request. SphynxCatVP 12:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Spelling of Sanguinarian/s/ism et cetera. Please correct all variations.
- Fixed all I could find... one accidental spelling mistake. If there's more, could you please fix them? Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
An excellent job has been done on the sources thus far. However, I keep getting into a circle of sources. I don't believe that one of these sites has actual information that has been originally researched. It’s always information obtained from other website and so on. -- Charles 07:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, all the articles on SphynxCat's site (except those by Sarasvati, but he gave SphynxCat permission to use them himself) were written explicitly for the site and it is the original source of all those articles. I wish there was more available, I'll keep looking. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just a slight correction, the only articles on that site written expressly FOR that site, are ones written by me. Others have been seen elsewhere, and I have been given permission to post a copy to my site. In many cases, some of the original sites (and authors) have disappeared (or moved on to other things) and I end up having the only copy of their article(s). Sphynxcatvp 12:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I keep seeing ‘some believe this, however the minority believe this.’ If there was a central dogma we could all confer to it would be easier to find truth, but the majority of the information is just personal account after personal account. Where is the concrete evidence? Can any proved or tested? Can studies be found?
-- Charles 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Studies can be found (I have seen some before), but not without incredibly significant effort on the part of one researcher (I mean, I spent approximately five hours a week reading information relating to Sanguinarianism, but I have only seen a few scientific papers written on the condition, here and there). The problem is the community is not generally not interested in validating itself, rather with informing those who already have the condition. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's just as frustrating for those of us in the community who want to see more concrete info too. :) Sphynxcatvp 12:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a new lay out would be best. Perhaps a new lay out that contrasts medical/science vs. community belief. I keep thinking about religion; however I think we can do a really great job here.-- Charles 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think an article on it would best be laid out in such a form too, unfortunately categorisation is not one of my strong points! Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Sanguinarianism is a unique case. Personal opinion? Renfield's Syndrome seems a lot, to me at least, like Sanguinarianism.
If someone has a perceived need to consume blood they are suffering from Renfield's Syndrome. This illness was diagnosed by a clinical psychologist named Richard Noll. Since Rendield’s Syndrome is a rather obscure disorder here is an explanation of its origins.
Renfield is a fictional character in the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker. He is an inmate at the lunatic asylum overseen by Dr. Seward, and suffers from a delusional belief system that leads him to eat living creatures in the hope of obtaining their life-force for himself; being confined to the asylum, and aware of the foolishness of taking on a full-sized hospital orderly, this mostly means flies, spiders, and the occasional bird. During the course of the novel, he falls under the influence of Count Dracula - who, as a vampire, does the gaining-life-by-eating-life thing for real - and aids the Count in a number of small ways, most significantly by helping Count Dracula gain entrance into the asylum after Seward and his fellow vampire-hunters make it their base of operations. People tend to assume that Renfield was a more active and long-standing servant of the vampire Count and often depict his zoophagous (the eating of creatures, or more specifically drinking their blood) mania as a result of falling under Dracula's influence, rather than as a pre-existing condition that made him vulnerable to it.
Sufferers of Renfield’s Syndrome need blood to live, However, sanguinarians only need the blood to keep a steady energy flow about them so that they are not weak.
--
Charles 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although I didn't want to go into this much detail in the article, that isn't Renfield's Syndrome. It is written in the same book by Richard Noll, but is seen as the precursor to the real condition.
- "Next to develop is full blown Renfield's syndrome. This can involve murdering or detaining and forcing a person to donate their blood (usually dangerous amounts), stealing medical blood from hospitals or blood banks, or fetishistic sexual bloodplay." [1]
- If you read Noll's book (Vampires, Werewolves and Demons: Twentieth Century Reports in the Psychiatric Literature), you'll see the above is a pretty good description of Renfield's Syndrome, in fact using this definition (similar to the one Richard Noll used) Renfield's Syndrome is so incredibly NOT Sanguinarianism it barely needs a mention.
- However, assuming what I just wrote is wrong, there's still many arguments. If it's a 'perceived' need it isn't Sanguinarianism. Sanguinarism implies a real need, rather than a belief that one needs it. Possibly, a skeptical viewpoint would be that people with Sanguinarism simply had a perceived need, but then it would NOT fit the definition of Sanguinarism. Much in the same way simply having a different prophet sometimes defines what a religion is, having a real need would be what seperated Sanguinarism from Renfield's Syndrome (assuming that was the only issue).
- Also, Renfield's Syndrome is usually associated with the sexual arousal gained from drinking blood to my knowledge. At the least, it is to do with benefits gained. It is instead essential to life in Sanguinarianism. Such a euphoria is seen as a minor aspect of Sanguinarism that is considered not an exclusive reason to drink blood. It is not required for life to someone suffering Renfield's Syndrome under the actual medical condition even though it might be present in it's history. Most Sanguinarians would argue that the very novel you describe is merely a poor fictionalisation of the Sanguinarian state.
- Also, no Sanguinarian would perform autovampyrism because it serves them no benefit, whereas it is seen a a definite precursor to Renfield's Syndrome. Sanguinarians need little more than a teaspoons of blood at most to content them, whereas suffers of Renfield's Syndrome are reported to need whole cups. The book also suggests Renfield's Syndrome is predominately occurant in males. Sanguinarism is at the very least, pretty evenly divided and by some people's opinion generally more of a female condition. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Please address.
- sanguineus, sanguinea, sanguineum
- bloody, bloodstained; blood-red;
- sanguis, sanguinis
- blood; family;
- sanguĭnārĭus , a, um (also late Lat. sanguĭnāris , e, Vulg. Ecclus. 42, 5), adj. [sanguis] ,
- of or belonging to blood, blood-,
Perseus Project Online Latin Lexicon
Currently Listed
- Sanguineus
I think the word is sanguis, but the sources conflict. -- Charles 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I haven't changed that since the original article. Really, I don't think it should exist in the article, but every other similar article has such a thing (where the word is as bizarre). Needs a bit of work regardless. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Personaly, I would defer to official dictionaries for both the spelling and meaning of latin words - as a member of the sanguinarian community, I have seen that sometimes typos happen, or that "bad latin" gets passed around based on incorrect assumptions of latin structure. SphynxCatVP 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Current Source States
Nocturnal Visions (http://www.nocturnalvisions.freeservers.com)
Derived from the Latin *sanguineus* Means *bloodthirsty*, is commonly used to describe vampires who feel they need blood physically
- FYI: The Perseus online dictionary lists "sanguinarius" as the latin word for "bloodthirsty". (I also remember seeing that in my paper latin dictionary which unfortunately is missing.) SphynxCatVP 00:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking for more citations
I am currently in contact with he follow web authors: Charles 07:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/ (at time of post citation numbers: 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 26, and 27)
- http://www.drinkdeeplyanddream.com/ (at time of post citation numbers 15)
- http://michellebelanger.com/ (at time of post citation numbers 24)
This is an attempt to gather more citations and validate their information.
'Side effects'
- "Vampire Myths vs. Realities"
http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/articles/alibas-myths.html
- A vampire is born a vampire. Any one can drink blood from vampire, but unless the person was already a vampire, they can not and will never become a vampire.
- This Page doesn’t cover anything in side effects, I moved it to “How does one become a Sanguinarian?” and Sup Scripted it. -- Charles 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- A vampire is born a vampire. Any one can drink blood from vampire, but unless the person was already a vampire, they can not and will never become a vampire.
- Thanks. I had about twenty windows and a book open when I added all those sources, thanks for checking them. Rushyo 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is sanguinarian being capitalized in all cases in this article? (i.e. should it be?) RJFJR 19:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point! I am not English major however; Palestinian, American, European, and Spanish are capitalized. But, vegetarian, veterinarian, barbarian, are all lowercase. In my opinion it should be lowercased. --
cmanser 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I went ahead an fixed all the ones I could see. -- cmanser 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Vampire Lifestyle
I have proposed merging this article with Vampire Lifestyle. There are simultaneous conversations on the talk pages of both articles. Talk:Vampire_lifestyle, Talk:Sanguinarian. Please discuss.
- I just redirected the article to vampire lifestyle because this article has always been nothing more than a WP:FORK file against Wikipedia policies and never did get cleaned up or anything. Best way to improve it was to make it go away. If you think there is anything at all worth salvaging in the old version of the article, please move it to the appropriate article. DreamGuy 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Added to User:Kerowyn/Desk RJFJR 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
format for citations for reference Last, First (1998).
"Title" (PDF). Title of Complete Work. Retrieved 2006-04-19.