Talk:Zombie (folklore)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zombie (folklore) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zombie (folklore) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
Popularity
Doesn't popular interest in mobs of undead actually date from Vincent Prices' The Last Man on Earth?JohnC (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- You mean 'I Am Legend'. And that is a Vampire book, but it is a fair statement, the 'undead' surrounding the home of a surviving hero. It links to Romero's NotLD, was the book an influence. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sections
"Zombies in Voodoo" and "South African beliefs" seem liable to be under one section, possibly named "Mythology" or "History" and have the above changed to subsections. South African belief looks strange sandwiched between two large sections. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankenstein
Shouldn't Mary Shelley's 1818 work, Frankenstein, be credited somewhere? Her monster was a zombie, and was a forerunner to the works discussed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynbos (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, Frankenstein was not a zombie. You are confusing Romero's vision of zombies with the risen dead. The Mythology of zombies existed before Frankenstein and they were not the dead. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that the head picture is too gross?
I personally think that it is quite a good picture for showing what a zombie may look like. However, I am afraid that with all blood and gore...it is not very appropriate for people of all age. Lots of people would find it disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.161.176 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored, which means images, like the mentioned which I believe it's a good illustration of a zombie, are perfectly alright. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't being gory and scary the reason zombies are scary? I think the picture illustrates this quite well.--Reahad (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Gilgamesh
[1] is in fact a valid source. Unless you can discredit J. Getz, his interpretation of “If you do not give me the Bull of Heaven, I shall smash [the gates of the Netherworld, right down] to its dwelling, I shall bring up the dead to consume the living, I shall make the dead outnumber the living. " As being about what is currently referred to as zombies should be in this article. Gilgamesh has been translated into English since the late 19th century and would have been familiar to film makers like Carnegie Mellon graduate George A. Romero. The trope of the risen dead outnumbering and devouring the living has been common in zombie films and literature for the last 40 years. Nitpyck (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ghouls
What's the relationship between zombies and ghouls? The terms seem to be used interchangeably by some (such as in Romero's movies where the 'ghoul' is used in N.o.t.L.D. but 'zombie' in D.o.t.D. in reference to the same sort of creature) but more specifically by others (such as in Ghouls in popular culture which differentiates zombies as preferring live prey and indicates that Romero may have construed 'zombie' in a particular sense).
The conceptual proximity of ghouls and zombies and the brevity of the ghoul article suggests that a merger of these articles into a single one (ghoul -> zombie) might make sense. Seems to me like these terms reference essentially the same type of creature, but the terms have different geographical/etymological origins: 'ghoul' (Arabian) and 'zombie' (African). Having them described in a single article would provide a natural place to describe this distinction. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)