Jump to content

Talk:Zombie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valmendil (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 5 December 2015 (→Lead: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeZombie was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 8, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Archive
Archives

1 2

Academic Research sources are parody not real research

Looking at the sources for the Academic Research, it's quite clear they are not real research but pretend or spoof research. Interesting though they are, I think the section needs careful editing, verification and so on. What do people think? Robauz (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're done in fun, but not parody. Certainly Robert Smith?'s study is not parody; he actually says in an interview that his model could be applied to many diseases, like syphilis, that "return from the dead", so it is actual research. Serendipodous 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agree that a lot of the article would significantly benefit from "careful editing, verification and so on."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to add citations, but finding decent citations on this subject is rather difficult. It would be nice to have a little help. A "citation drive" might be useful for this. Serendipodous 11:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the "academic research" is not actually "academic research" nor meant to be taken seriously. it is an expression of the cultural impact as people apply modeling techniques etc to movie presentations. placing the papers in any context that implies they are something other than what they are is WP:OR / WP:SYN / WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, interpreting the epidemiological and legal ones as anything other than what they claim to be at face value is WP:OR. That they deal in hypotheticals does not inherently invalidate them. Papers exist that discuss the possibility and ramifications of contact with alien life, which may never happen yet has been fictionalized many times, but no one considers such analysis to be not "real". Conversely, it's not impossible that a a virus or biochemical agent could turn humans into I am Legend-style, zombie-like creatures. Ylee (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to eliminate them completely and immediately as complete WP:FRINGE documents making WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claims that require extraordinary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's bull. The papers were in major journals, so they have already been peer reviewed and accepted as valid by the top members of their fields. They're not parody; they're academic exercises- stretching the standard techniques and concepts in their various disciplines by applying them to fictional situations. If the model is valid, and the techniques used to generate it are valid, then the paper is valid. don't have a clue about scientific process or inquiry. Sorry, but you really don't have a clue about scientific process or inquiry. The initial cited paper was clearly published tongue in cheek as a way to highlight certain mathematical modeling techniques in an absurdist setting, using assumptions that would normally never be allowed in any legitimate piece of research. As such, its reference here is misleading and out of context, and frankly embarrassing for Wiki to allow.Seendipodous 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFC might be appropriate in this sort of deadlock... Kaini (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its really absurd to have a section on "academic" research on this topic. The first paper cited was not scientific in the least bit, except so far as using mathematical models. It bases those models on assumptions which dictate the end results, i.e. a certain transmission rate which will invariably become all encompassing. Its presence in a peer reviewed journal is surprising, because of its obvious assumptions and shortcomings insofar as its claims to prove what it claims to prove, but one can only assume it was allowed to show a sense of humor in showcasing mathematical modeling. However, its use in this format in Wikipedia is misleading and suggests that a "zombieesque" disease would have a threat that just isn't supported by facts or logic. That demeans the seriousness of Wikipedia to allow such absurdist, out of context frivolity to be used in such a manner. If it is kept up, its flaws should at least be noted in order to preserve credibility for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.226.6.148 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Move

title affix is inappropriate and the content also slurs into that of the other article, whence the tagging. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See talk archive. This discussion has been had. And no, unless you can produce a source confirming such a slur, there is no overlap between these two topics except the name. Serendipodous 19:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest move to Zombie (trope) then. All zombies are fictional. The situation in African religions, no less so. The mention of Gilgamesh is an example of the slurring I referred to. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME - zombie (fictional) is the much more commonly expected name than "trope" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly expected by whom? In any case the least thing would be Zombie (fiction), to redact the implicit assertion of a distinction. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussion, I suggested Zombie (flesh eating) as an alternative. Personally I think there is a difference between fiction and folklore, but I seem to be alone in that. Also, I'm not clear on how the Gilgamesh mention "slurs" anything. All fictional creations have mythical and/or folkloric antecedents, including zombies. Serendipodous 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"slur" is used as a verb here, as in 'slurred speech', or in this case concepts/thought. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why is a mention of an antecedent in ancient literature "slurring" the concept? Serendipodous 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies and "zombies" and "zombies"

While there is clearly a difference in the scholarly community in reliably published materials between the traditional zombie of Haitian voodoo and the fictional horror zombie, I dont think that there is credence to any Wikipedia arbitrary distinction of limiting the discussion of fictional zombies to only those of the "flesh eating" type as opposed to the run of the mill fictional "monster zombies" of whatever origin. Within particular zombie aficiantos that may be a distinction they make, but WP:UNDUE would require that the Wikipedia article cover all of the horror types. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is more to do with what to call this article. I've suggested Zombie (flesh eating) as an alternative. Serendipodous 19:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but that is another distinction that is not generally made within sources. We could certainly have something like a Zombie (horror fiction) and then a spin-off daughter article Impact of George Ramos on zombie fiction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinction made in the source I located. And no other source I've found bothers to make any sort of distinction, or even to suggest that there is one. I don't see any reason to lump all creatures called "zombies" into one article, particularly when the voodoo zombie article already has a "pop culture" section. As for George Romero, he didn't invent the "new" zombie from whole cloth, as this article points out, and there is an entire mythical/folkloric genealogy to the Romero zombie that has nothing to do with the voodoo zombie. I really hoped I wouldn't have to have this conversation again. Serendipodous 10:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you were only able to find the distinction made in one source and that no other sources bother is clear proof that basing our article on such a preposition is giving an WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe position. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I mean. None of the other sources make a connection at all. Either there is a connection between these two creatures or there isn't. Most sources simply go from one type of zombie to the other without bothering to connect them or to explain how the one became the other. The only source I've managed to locate that does this claims there is no connection. So that's what I go with. Serendipodous 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no one makes the distinction between horror fiction zombies that you are stating and trying to impose on the article. People do make distinctions between the horror fiction zombie and the studies of the voodoo zombie of traditional Haitian lore. The fictional horror zombies are inspired sometimes closely but more frequently only vaguely by the Haitian zombie. And Ramos' take on the zombie has also been a major touch point. But in the study of horror fiction zombies, there is no distinction made between different kinds of zombies, except as each individual creator makes their own spin.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not imply a connection where none exists. Simply lumping voodoo zombies into the "evolution" section alongside Frankenstein, Lovecraft and European folklore (which have nothing whatsoever to do with voodoo zombies) forces the reader to infer a connection between them. The only connection I can see between voodoo zombies and "Romero" zombies (please spell his name correctly if you wish to claim superior knowledge of the subject) is the name. If you can find other connections, fine, include them. But don't just butt-splice them together without context. Serendipodous 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just to make sure I am understanding your position, you are in effect stating that this article should have a hat note disambiguation along the lines of
  • This article is about the fictional "flesh eating" zombie (which does not have any roots in the Haitian voodoo zombie). for information about voodoo inspired zombies, see Zombie#In_popular_culture.
is that right? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, along those lines.Serendipodous 13:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Frankenstein in the lead

Frankenstein's monster is not flesh-eating so this statement is wrong: Flesh-eating zombies have a complex literary heritage, with antecedents ranging from Richard Matheson and H. P. Lovecraft to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, all drawing on European folklore of the flesh-hungry undead. I'm not a zombies-in-literature expert so somebody else is going to have to replace the Frankenstein example. Game over man, game over! (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the flesh-eating part for now. Feel free to put it back if the Frankenstein example is removed - that's if the other examples given feature flesh-eating undead. Game over man, game over! (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conspicuously Absent

Is there any reason why The Last Man on Earth (1964 film) is not mentioned? Surely it is relevant, as one of the inspirations what this article claims to have started the phenomenon, Night of the Living Dead. It seems peculiar that it is not covered here, given its earlier appearance and roots in the same I Am Legend (novel) as other things that are mentioned. And The Day of the Triffids (novel) and its progeny are also surely a part of this the evolution of this genre, no? It is likewise missing.

Keith.blackwell (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get you; the movie is mentioned. As for The Day of the Triffids, yes that should be mentioned, but it would require a source tying both it and "I Am Legend" to the "cosy catastrophe" concept. Serendipodous 17:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article about the Fictional zombie

this is the article about the fictional zombie, as is indicated by the article title Zombie (fictional). It is not Zombie (fictional flesh eating). If you think there is sufficient academic content to warrant a spin off of "flesh eating" zombie content as a daughter article of the Zombie (fictional), you may draft one, but until then, this is the content for all the fictional zombie stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source

This looks like a potentially awesome source for a lot of aspects of this article.

  • Moreman, Christopher M.; Rushton, Cory James (2011). Zombies are Us: Essays on the Humanity of the Walking Dead. McFarland. pp. 219–. ISBN 9780786459124. Retrieved 19 November 2013.

Requested move 11 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There was clear consensus for a move, but also possibly developing consensus to actually merge the two articles (also in the discussion below). I will only perform a move for now, but if anyone wants to boldly try a merge, I don't think that would be frowned upon. Number 57 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. --Relisted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC) AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that the term "zombie" most commonly refers to the fictional zombie described here, and not the "zombie" or "zonbi" of Haitian tradition currently at the page Zombie. Following with WP:COMMONNAME, I believe this article should be presented at Zombie rather than Zombie (fictional), and the description of the Haitian term should be Zombie (Vodou) [edit: Zombie (folklore),] or something similar. The number of GHits for the various related terms may support this hunch:

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to that, although we could could have Zombie as the DAB and let the reader choose between Zombie (fictional) and Zombie (Vodou). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. But since there are only two terms, would you still say it's preferable to have a DAB over having a hatnote on the the primary "Zombie" (the fictional one) that leads to/differentiates from "Zombie (Vodou)"? And would you say that "Zombie (Vodou)" would be best, or other spellings like Zonbi, or Voodoo, or something else? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there an active Wikiproject Haiti that could give advice on most common/appropriate spelling?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I looked, and it doesn't seem too active on talk page over there, so I'm not sure how helpful it'd be. Think I may just be bold and go ahead with the common spellings in English usage per WP:COMMONNAME if no on objects here (i.e. "zombie" and "Vodou"). Though the two types of vodou associated with zombies, Haitian Vodou, and West African Vodun apparently have different preferred spellings, but both occasionally use a number of the same spellings. I'm thinking either Vodou, Vodun, or Voodoo would be most appropriate. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One potential issue will be checking that all the links to Zombie and Zombie (fictional) continue to link to the correct page, but from an initial assessment, it seems that many of them will need to be corrected anyways, ideally. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a vote going for this? I'm not familiar with how to create one. JanderVK (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the process is described Wikipedia:Move_requests#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves, with the request to involve 2 articles, its maybe a little more complex than I want to try. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was hoping to get some degree of consensus here on the talk page before we involve an admin for the technical help. I think there may be a case that some consensus exists since no one has objected as of yet, but then again, only a few of us have contributed to the discussion, so it's not a great sample size. Do you have any opinion on the spelling, @JanderVK:? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment - move of this article to Zombie, as per common name. I would not support Zombie as a DAB between fictional & Vodou. I think, however, part of the problem we've run into in the past with this issue was how to write a parenthetical qualifier that includes both Haitian Vodou and West African Vodun. The present situation was partly meant to accommodate all sides, so that neither group would be excluded, and there wouldn't be some bulky all-inclusive qualifier. Also I think terms like (folklore), (religious), (non-fictional) were all suggested and rejected. I suggest combing through the archives, and maybe come up with a new idea. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(progenitor of the modern fictional) - yeah, i guess that is wordy. Are the Haitian Vodou / West African Vodun concepts distinct enough that each would have a stand alone article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are, though I'm no expert on that subject. Even if they're not so different, what would be the all-inclusive term in parentheses? That was an issue we struggled with in a previous debate, probably on the Talk:Zombie page. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you Boneyard - I didn't spot it in the archives before, but looking at the discussion there, the idea seems to be more controversial than I originally suspected. I think though, that the idea of the parenthetical portion being "(folklore)" wasn't discussed enough. It seems to me that something along those lines might be a reasonable descriptor. I think it's important for the folkloric Vodou/Vodun zombies to be represented in this article, and the lede prominently mentions them, but I think also adding it to the hatnote would improve it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and thanks for the reminder - I've tagged it now. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know (or else long forgot) that zombies originated in West African/Haitian folklore. That is why I oppose this request. The current setup is educationally superior. The original meaning of "zombie" should be primary. The proposed primary article is rather imprecise, combining the Epic of Gilgamesh, Frankenstein and the Living Dead. It might be desirable to turn this page into "Zombies in horror fiction", the page philosophical zombie into "Zombies in philosophy", and so on, and leave them as subarticles of a broadened zombie article. —Srnec (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this approach, as I have said many times, is that these concepts have nothing to do with one another except the word "zombie". The zombie of Haitian voodoo is a pliant, submissive slave; pretty much the opposite of the uncontrollable, ravening corpses that we think of when we say "zombie". The "philosophical zombie" isn't even undead; it's a creature that behaves exactly like a normal person except for not being self-aware. Basically what would happen if you programmed a chatbot with enough responses to pass the Turing test. The Haitian zombies are mentioned in the subsection "The name "zombie"". Serendipodous 17:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would reiterate the point I made in a related conversation, that the relevant definition is: "A zombie is a creature found in various myths, legends, and certain religious traditions, that was previously a normal human being, but has since been reduced by magical forces or fantastic biological events to a mindless state". bd2412 T 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to decide between merging and moving, I support merging. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-ish, exactly per Red Slash, just above. Merge + CONCEPTDAB is the most useful approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, the fictional horror meaning is a clear primary topic. JIP | Talk 07:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (sort of - really a merge) - my preferred option is having a page - zombie - which encompasses the whole concept (much like vampire does), mainly because the folklore and fictional are clearly and closely linked. Neither current page is large, the two combined are nowhere near the 50kb of prose that would normally prompt a split. The bulk of material at zombie would go into a zombie (folklore) page. I should add that I think a DAB page is not needed and renders the situation a tad convoluted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If we have to choose, the Hollywood version is the clear primary topic. To echo what several editors have said already, the current division gives the Hollywood vs folklore issue a false significance. Zombies are fictional reanimated corpses, both those in Haiti and those in Hollywood. NotUnusual (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Folkloric vs. modern fictional zombies

[Refactored out of the !voting area above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)][reply]

We have articles on the undead, the living dead and ghouls. There is no need for an article on zombies in fiction where "zombie" is synonymous with one of those terms. Srnec (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Surely it should be synonymous with one of those terms, unless the term has no meaning at all. If that's the case, we should just call the article "The word "zombie" in fiction". Serendipodous 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's synonymous with one of those terms, we should be discussing a merger. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about fictional representations of zombies. It's an article about a specific thing that happens to be called a zombie. There is no way you could merge it with either philosophical zombie or the Voodoo zombie without radically altering the definition of both. Serendipodous 19:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asserting such a claim and you keep failing to provide sourcing that supports your assertions. The coverage of zombies in reliable sources makes no such differentiation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then this article needs to reflect the two concepts are in fact one. If any one can come up with a definition of a creature that is simultaneously an obedient slave and an uncontrollable monster; a consumer of yams and also only human flesh; a being brought to life by sorcery and by a virus, I'm all ears, but no one has done that. Serendipodous 20:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the term "zombie" as used here is synonymous with at least one of undead, living dead or ghoul. So I said it should be merged with the one with which it is synonymous (as used here). I was never suggesting a merger of this page with zombie or philosophical zombie. The zombies of popular imagination are related to Haitian zombies by family resemblance and, perhaps, by descent. They do not just "happen" to share a name. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to RedPenofDoom; according to him the Voodoo zombie and the Romero zombie are one and the same, though he never actually alters the article to reflect this; all he does is copy-paste information from one to the other without context. Serendipodous 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like every zombie movie book EVER WRITTEN.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book of the Dead charts the history of the walking dead from the monster's origins in Haitian voodoo, through its cinematic debut in 1932's White Zombie up to blockbuster World War Z and beyond.[1]
  • Featuring chronological reviews of more than 300 zombie films--from 1932's "White Zombie" to George A. Romero's 2008 release "Diary of the Dead--"this thorough, uproarious guide traces the evolution of one of horror cinema's most popular[2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]

References

  1. ^ Russell, Jamie (2014-10-14). The Book of the Dead: The Complete History of Zombie Cinema. Titan Books Limited. ISBN 9781781169254. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  2. ^ Kay, Glenn (2008-10-01). Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 9781569766835. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  3. ^ McIntosh, Shawn; Leverette, Marc (2008-02-15). Zombie Culture: Autopsies of the Living Dead. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810860438. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  4. ^ Scott, Niall (2007). Monsters and the Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil. Rodopi. pp. 45–. ISBN 9789042022539. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  5. ^ Bishop, Kyle William (2010-01-26). American Zombie Gothic: The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of the Walking Dead in Popular Culture. McFarland. ISBN 9780786455546. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  6. ^ Greene, Richard; Mohammad, K. Silem (2010). Zombies, Vampires, and Philosophy: New Life for the Undead. Open Court. ISBN 9780812696837. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  7. ^ Dendle, Peter (2012-09-26). The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia, Volume 2: 2000-2010. McFarland. ISBN 9780786492886. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  8. ^ Mogk, Matt (2011-09-13). Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Zombies. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781451641585. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  9. ^ Brown, Nathan (2010-04-06). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Zombies. DK Publishing. ISBN 9781101223727. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
I'm not asking for citations; I'm asking for a definition; one that encompasses both creatures and accurately defines them both. Serendipodous 20:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zombies are zombies and reliable sources cover them all together. Your assertion that there are different kinds of zombies that are incompatibly different requiring different articles will require sources before it is even considered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your definition is "Zombies are zombies". Cool. Everyone try and work with that. Would you like me to add that definition to both articles? Serendipodous 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have sourced my "zombies are zombies in the eyes of reliable sources". Multiply. You have not provided a single reliable source for some sort of un-unifiable difference between Romero zombies and other zombies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have so many sources then then what do they say? WHAT IS A ZOMBIE? I don't understand why this question is so difficult for you. Serendipodous 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are very different from each other and yet in the minds of most, they are "Fantasy".

  • Fantasy
    • Contemporary Fantasy (Harry Potter)
    • Epic Fantasy (LOTR)

The same concept applies here

  • Zombies
    • Zombies of the folklore of African Diaspora
    • Horror fiction Zombies
      • "Voodoo" zombies
      • Romero zombies
      • Virus zombies.

I think Serendipodous is trying to position this as a level 3 article, but I vision it as a level 2 article. Perhaps there are enough sources that discuss zombies at level 3, but that is not this article. it would be a spinoff.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Fantasy begins with a definition: "Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting." That is a definition that accurately and equally describes both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, regardless of their differences. If we are going to make Romero zombies a subtopic of "Zombie" then we need a definition that does the same for both. It doesn't have to be a particularly detailed one, but it should more specific than "undead". Serendipodous 21:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Its good enough connection for all the reliable source zombie movie books to use to hook together all the zombie movies. And you have not provided any sources otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because right now we have two articles that define zombies as two completely different things. You can't make a connection between them if the articles don't. You might as well move a section from Elizabeth Woodville to the article on the White Queen (Through the Looking-Glass), because they both happen to share that name. Are you saying that Wikipedia articles shouldn't define their topics? Serendipodous 21:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should follow the sources- and the sources essentially lump all zombies together. until you provide some sources for the basis of your position, I see no value in continuing this "discussion" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Break and restatement

  • On looking at the 2 articles here:-
    1. Page Zombie is about Haitian/African zombies, some of which may have been real people made subservient (not violent) by particular poisons.
    2. Page Zombie (fictional) seems to be consistently about cannibalistic or otherwise violent fictional zombies. About the statements in page Zombie (fictional), I cannot fully say "right" or "wrong", because I am not a habitual reader or viewer of zombie fiction. The fictional zombie seems to have started as a distorted fictionalized version of the Haitian zombie started by an author of horror fiction who wanted effective fictional villains. This sort of fictional zombie has developed very different from Haitian zombies and is now in effect a very different species.
    3. To those add the inevitable assortment of derivative uses of the word, listed in Zombie (disambiguation).
    This discussion started 37 days ago and ran only 3 days, except for one later message. Each of these 2 sorts of zombie has its own article here, and the discussion seems to be about:
    1. Leave these 2 pages alone.
    2. Move Zombie → Zombie (folklore) and then move Zombie (fictional) → Zombie.
    3. Merge these 2 pages.
    Some may suspect that the two moves at (2) would break incoming links, but page Zombie seems to receive many incoming links about fictional horror zombies, and the reader must click on the hatlink. But "Zombie (folklore)" may not be the best name, because many would say that the horror zombie has by now become part of modern folklore.
    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New idea for article title

Perhaps it would actually be best if this article was at Zombie apocalypse, focusing on the particular genre of story, rather than the species of imaginary creature; and really, the fictional creatures in White Zombie have almost nothing in common with those in the "Romero-style" zombie stories.--Pharos (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Srnec (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie virus

appearantly, something similar can happen in real life, see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/1001027-rabies-influenza-zombie-virus-science/

Request for comment

NAC:Not a properly formed RFC. Worded as a complaint about editing by another editor rather than as a question or request for comments. Suggest a new properly formed RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently, Wikipedia has two distinct articles on the topic of zombies; zombies as related to Haitian Voodoo and Zombie (fictional), which covers the standard modern definition of a zombie as created by George Romero. Because the two topics share little in common, there has been no attempt to combine them, as to do so would require a definition that encompassed both while simultaneously excluding other embodied undead such as vampires. User:RedPenOfDoom has been attempting to merge the articles into one.

He wants to make Zombie (fictional) an article about zombies in fiction and zombie into an article about both voodoo and flesh-eating zombies. However, he has yet to suggest an overarching definition that applies to them both.

His method of combining them to date has been simply to copy and paste information without context from one article to the other, leaving each article with completely unrelated information that is not mentioned anywhere else in the text.

He claims to have access to a large number of reliable sources that treat the two together, but has so far refused to offer a definition for a combined topic. Serendipodous 21:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far Serendipodous has failed to provide a source let alone number of sources that would indicate such distinction is one that is commonly held. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly are people supposed to be commenting upon? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. You've never understood what the problem is; it's like we're talking two different languages. I'm hoping that someone else will at least be able to understand. If not, fine. But at least I tried. And I thought you said you didn't want to have this discussion anymore. Serendipodous 09:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see [[1]] particularly the Good Questions and Bad Questions pullout. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised it. I hope it makes sense now. Serendipodous 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article "Zombie" should follow the sources and cover all kinds of zombies. If there are particular niche "zombies" which are specifically covered by reliable sources (ie the zombies of the Haitian folklore tradition), then spin out "child" articles can be created as per the MOS. There is no "dichotomous" split of "zombies" expressed by vast majority of reliable sources and we do not frame our content by Wikipedia editor's proclamation that such a dichotomy exists, particularly without ANY reliable sources to back such a claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add to your collection of sources Jovanka Vuckovic, Zombies!: An Illustrated History of the Undead (2011): "From origins in Haitian voodoo zombie lore and the literature of Mary Shelley and Edgar Allan Poe, the undead began to slowly seep through the pulp magazines and silent cinema of the early twentieth century, and on to classic 1970s and eighties undead flicks like Lucio Fulci's Zombie and George A. Romero's legendary Dawn of the Dead". A definition was requested before; I would propose: "A zombie is a creature found in various myths and legends that was previously a normal human being, but has since been reduced by magical forces or fantastic biological events to a mindless state". bd2412 T 15:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's pretty good. I'd be willing to support that. Over on List of zombie films, we've extensively used two sources, Peter Dendle's Zombie Movie Encyclopedia and Glenn Kay's Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide. Both are invaluable sources for all things related to zombies, and neither makes much of a difference between Haitian and Romero zombies. Merging does seem like a reasonable action. As far as the modern zombie, it's easy enough to source a definition. I did a bit of research on starting an article on zombie films at Talk:List of zombie films, but I never got around to it. Those sources could easily be repurposed. If we go through with this, Zombie (fictional) should be renamed to Zombies in popular culture if that's going to be its new topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an admin to review or is it agreed that "zombies=all zombies" for the primary article and then spin outs for particular niche zombies as the sources discuss them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me; standard operating procedure per WP:SUMMARY. This is not the case of two totally different things coincidentally having the same name; the one derives from the other in this case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2015 merge discussion - with Zombie (folklore)

Sorry to open up a new thread, but I was having a difficult time deciphering on what is current and what was a past discussion.
1. I do not support a page move > Zombie and the Zombie page > Zombie (Vodou), because it is Haitian folklore and has nothing to do with the religion of Vodou itself. Kind of like how Vampires are appalled by crosses in fictional stories but have nothing to do with Christianity even though it is often intertwined in its stories. I do believe, if all else that the Zombie page is not to be moved at all. Example: Hercules (original Greek folktale character)
2. I do believe that should be discussed is a possible merge into the Zombie article, for the reason that Haitian folklore inspired Americans during the 1915-1934 U.S. occupation of Haiti to add the Zombie to their collection of horror stories, which was one story in fact that did not originate from Europe as many did. (See: Exploring the Undead: The Usefulness of the Zombie in Haitian literature by Kaiama L. Grover [2]) Also, there are popular American movies based on the original Zombie. (See: White Zombie, it was an early portrayal).
3. Both pages are of fictional characters, which makes a Zombie (fictional), sort of redundant in name.
4. It is already noted on the Zombie article, how the folktale is interpreted used, or portrayed in popular culture. Now, what do I mean by popular culture? Has anyone seen the movie "Exodus: Gods and Kings" lately? It was NOTHING close to the original biblical story. Gods? Weapons to free the slaves? etc. Should we create an Exodus (fictional) article? The point is that we often take stories and make them our own as we modify it in a way where it differs from its original story. We can not discredit originality of a story in favor of popular culture's modifications, nor can we create an article to include every single difference made in every movie, or book.
5. In case we cannot agree on a merge, I request that we follow the pattern we had already created, which is to check common folktale characters (Greek ones are the easiest) and to check the title on their offshoot article pages that discuss their use in popular culture.

P.S. I recently, revamped (and "resurrected") the WikiProject Haiti entirely, since about the middle of last year. In doing so, I have gone very far in studying the culture of the country that I have found to be quite interesting. I will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to folklore etc. Thank you all for your time. Savvyjack23 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reply:
On #2 - the articles were split long ago because it was thought that if they were merged,the article would be (A) too long, and (B) the subjects of the Voudou-style and movie-style zombies are so different that they deserve individualized treatment.
On #3 - an editor in a previous debate pointed out that actual Voudou-practitioners might not view their zombies as "fictional", and would find it offensive, just as Christians would find it offensive to have and article called "Genesis (fictional)" or "Exodus (fictional)". No religion equates beliefs with "fiction".
On #4 - Not sure of the point there. Sounds like a ranting extension of #2 & #3.
On #5 - This has been done, I'm just not sure how many mythical creatures have departed their cultural origins so much and have also become so pervasive in modern pop culture. There may not be any precedents.
Hope this helps - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this page is getting hard to follow. At the moment, the end of the thread to discuss the moving/merging etc. is where I made my comment here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Boneyard90. I suppose it is possible that Vodou-practitioners "may" oppose, however can we actually source that? The way that I see it, if all else, both pages should not move. I do not see how it can improve much at this point. I do however, strongly oppose a move of this article to "Zombie" and the "Zombie" page to Zombie (Vodou) or (Folklore), just as there is not a "Hercules (Greek mythology)" page. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When did we agree to move Zombie (fictional) to Zombie and Zombie to Zombie (folklore)?? I was under the impression that they would merge. Please undo this move. WP:Primary topic is very debatable. I gave a Hercules example above, (which is the "latin" spelling by the way, for the popular Greek deity). This move denotes the "primary" origins of the Zombie itself by bumping it to "folklore", which is also debatable as it was mentioned to me earlier that vodouists might possibly "not" refer to it as such. I would agrue that it was better before. As I am reading the feedback, I see no indictation that such a move should have been made. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was made per the #Requested move 11 December 2014 discussion having finally been closed; I see WP:Primary topic as clear-cut in this case. A move-back does not have to happen for the Zombie (folklore) article to be merged with the Zombie article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's good to know, thanks for the quick reply. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to note the following soon after it happened: Since Casliber (Cas Liber) made this edit, I don't see why we still need the Zombie (folklore) article; it should simply be completely merged with this one. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - agree this page could still be expanded lots as only 28kb of prose. I am guessing there'd be more info about the folklore stuff out tehre. I'd hold off on a complete merge for teh time being. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 merge discussion redux - with Living Dead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec has suggested that Living Dead but has not put a discussion spot, so here it is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • When did the living dead come about? I think it could still be considered a zombie since they are essentially the same thing (or very similar) to popular culture, but I could be wrong. Also, if we were to merge, I would support the "living dead" article to be merged into this article, perhaps listed as a derivative. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the Living Dead-article is about a specific media franchise and by nature does not include zombie material outside of the franchise, including things from zombie's Haitian history to the The Walking Dead franchise to anime, gaming, etc. These two topics aren't particularly comparable. Furthermore, "zombie" is the common name for this topic, with "living dead" being used more often as a descriptive name. Lastly, the term "living dead" still describes any fictional creature that is dead while still showing signs of being alive. The term "zombie" is much more specific and well-documented. I don't understand the reason to merge this article with Living Dead. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the Living Dead article is about the franchise rather than the monster, and the only general monster description that could be merged from there is the "Romero's versus O'Bannon's zombies" section, which is pure WP:OR. --McGeddon (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the Living Dead is a specific form of the much more general and inclusive concept of Zombie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.210.176 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Living Dead article is most clear dealing with the Romero series, which is an entity well worth exploring on its own. Perhaps this is better discussed as a move from the Living Dead title to prevent any confusion between the terms. I've change the lead of the Living Dead article to reflect the actual scope of what the article is covering. SFB 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose - The other users are right about Living Dead being about the franchise. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose - As others have stated, the Living Dead is about the Dead franchise and its various sequels, spin-offs and other related media. --Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

the last paragraphs of the lead are eventually a bit too detailed for an introduction. The focus is too much on some specific movies instead of giving a general description of the word.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zombie&oldid=693928504"